 |
 |
Hi chandraShekar, Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. Anyway here we go: > i am trying to import nmrview peak lists; it so happens that my > sequence numbering starts from 320; but the peaklists do not have > complete assignments; the most n-terminal assignment is for residue 327. > > now, there were quite a few error messages including "jump" in sequence. > so i tried the python commands in the window in which 'analysis' was fired up > and the commands executed w/o any complaints. but i still got the > error messages such as "jump" in sequence numbering; more importantly, > the linked resonances all had internal renumberings from ccpn; The 'jump' messages are normal - the FC is just telling you that the sequence numbering it imported from your assignments of your peak lists has gaps in it, and that it assumes the information in those gaps is missing (essentially that your sequence numbering is sequential). This is necessary because it also happens that people number their sequence from 1-100, then suddenly jump to 300 for the next residue. Anything can happen, basically, so that's why the linking of the CCPN sequence numbers to the 'format-imported' sequence number has to be rather complicated (it has to be generic enough). > lastly, i also have what we call as "pseudo" residues; i.e. for those > peaks, let us say in trhncacb3d, for which we know exists a peak in trosy, > trhnco and/or thrncocacb3d, the nmrview peak assignment boxes have > been filled w/ let's say 8.hn - 7.cb - 8.ca (but the real sequence > starts only from 320); is it better for me to drop these pseudo > resonances? So do you mean that you 'invent' the 7 and 8 sequence codes because you know these are sequentially linked, but you don't know where they are in the actual sequence yet? This information is not easily transferred, I'm afraid - there is currently no 'spinSystem' I/O support for NmrView at all. If you link your residues from 320 on to the CCPN sequence, you will still have the resonances for the 8.hn, 7.cb and 8.ca, but they will not be linked together in any way - probably easiest to do that by hand in Analysis later on. I'm not planning to add any spinSystem-level support for NmrView for the moment - it gets very complicated because it is more or less a free format for its atom and sequence numbering. I will have a think about adding in some support for this on the linkResonances level though... could be possible without too much hassle. Bye, Wim