Member Site › Forums › Rosetta 3 › Rosetta 3 – General › prepare PDB with constrained relax
- This topic has 3 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 4 months ago by
Anonymous.
-
AuthorPosts
-
-
May 5, 2013 at 2:10 pm #1570
Anonymous
Hi,
When I were preparing some PDB files of crystal structures for Rosetta simulation, there are several ways to go after I checked Rosetta manuals and demos.
First method is following the doc ‘Documentation for relax pdb with all-atom constraints / prepare pdb for rosetta with relax’ in user guide and the codes in demos/prepare_pdb_for_rosetta_with_relax/. Breifly, it is using “relax” with some extra options e.g. ‘-relax:constrain_relax_to_start_coords’.
Another method is mentioned in doc ‘Documentation for ddg_monomer application’ where a helper application ‘minimize_with_cst’ is used.
I have no idea what is the difference between the two approaches and which one is more preferable in practical applications. So anyone can give some details about the backends?
Personally I prefer ‘minimize_with_cst’ because it can keep the original chain IDs in PDB, while ‘relax’ always renumbers the chain IDs to ‘A B C D …’ even the option “-out:file:renumber_pdb false” is used.
Is there any way to let ‘relax’ not to renumber chain IDs?cheers,
-
May 6, 2013 at 7:47 pm #8726
Anonymous
Unfortunately, coordinate constrained relax will always renumber PDBs – at least with Rosetta3.4 and before.
The problem is that in order to properly constrain the coordinates of the residues, relax adds and then removes a “virtual root” atom. The process of adding and deleting a residue results caused Rosetta to renumber the entire PDB.
This has been fixed for upcoming Rosetta3.5 release, so coordinate constrained relax will no longer renumber the PDB.
**
Regarding the difference between constrained relax and minimize, constrained relax is a bit more aggressive in its optimization. It does cycles of packing and minimization with ramping repulsive, so it can better rework hydrogen bonding networks and do a more effective local search. It also consequently takes longer. If speed is not an issue, I’d recommend the constrained relax (though I have access to the version which doesn’t renumber PDBs).
-
May 12, 2013 at 4:06 am #8750
Anonymous
Thank you for the comments.
I am looking forward to version 3.5.
Indeed, constrained relax takes much longer than minimize, and somehow my MPI-compiled version does not boost the calculation. If the MPI works, the speed is more comfortable . -
May 12, 2013 at 8:43 pm #8753
Anonymous
Most protocols in Rosetta are parallelized at the output structure level – each output structure can be run in parallel, but a single output structure doesn’t gain anything from being run with MPI. There are some protocols that benefit greatly from MPI even for a single output, but relax is one where MPI gains will only be realized when doing multiple output structures.
-
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.