Member Site › Forums › Rosetta 3 › Rosetta 3 – Applications › the flexpepdock refinement and ab-initio
- This topic has 6 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 6 months ago by
Anonymous.
-
AuthorPosts
-
-
December 24, 2013 at 3:17 am #1785
Anonymous
Hello,
I applied the FlexPepDock refinement protocol and the FlexPepDock ab-initio protocol to simulate the same peptide-protein complexe(1K5N) and generated a mass of models(refinement n=1000; ab-initio n=50000). The score function of two protocols is score12. The models was ranked based on the reweighted-score.
However, the score of the top models of refinement is better than ab-initio.Sub-angstrom models were sampled in the cases of refinement. Even though ab-initio protocol generated near-native models,their energy score is high.
In ab-initio i don’t observe the trend that near-native models have low energy.In most of cases the top models have unqualified rmsd.
The scatter diagram have been attached. -
December 24, 2013 at 12:00 pm #9619
Anonymous
Hi tfliu,
The results are quite unexpected given the same initial structure for both the runs ( same initial structure,right? ). Could you please provide the commands you used for running both the refinement and ab initio?
I am hoping you have mentioned chain C as the peptide chain ( by default it’s always the second chain). -
December 25, 2013 at 2:33 am #9620
Anonymous
Hi nawsad,
Refinement:
I place the mutant peptide in the receptor binding site. The bb-RMSD of staring structure is 3.1.
Flag
-s 1k5n.pdb
-native native.pdb
-pep_refine
-ex1
-ex2aro
-use_input_sc
-nstruct 1000ab-initio:
I apply BuildPeptide.linuxgccrelease to generate extended peptide and place it in the correct binding site.The bb-RMSD is 4.6.
Flag
-s 1k5n.pdb
-native native.pdb
-receptor_chain A
-peptide_chain B
-nstruct 50000
-lowres_abinitio
-pep_refine
-ex1
-ex2aro
-use_input_sc
-flexpep_score_only
-peptide_anchor 285
-frag3 frags.3mers.offset
-frag5 frags.5mers.offset
-frag3_weight 1.0
-frag5_weight 0.25 -
December 25, 2013 at 9:25 am #9621
Anonymous
Hi Tfliu,
everything seems OK to me. Could you please upload the pdbs if possible. -
December 26, 2013 at 3:09 pm #9622
Anonymous
Thanks.
Here are my pdb files. -
January 18, 2014 at 3:44 pm #9679
Anonymous
Hi tiflu,
Seems like sampling is the issue here. The scoring function is working fine and refinement of native gives structures more stable that what found from the ab-initio docking. There are two probable reasons I see, one being in the creation of fragment files. As the predicted secondary structure is helical for few residues which is not in real case. May be the initial structure is trapped in a funnel which is quite stable and not able to get back to native with default perturbation values. Could you please rerun with increased perturbation values? Also you can run another run with different fragment files. I will say use fragment picker and use less priority and weight for secondary structure score.
here are the flags you can use to run with increased rigid body and BB sampling.-random_phi_psi_preturbation 40.0
-random_trans_start 4.0
#-random_rot_start 10.0
-smove_angle_range 30best,
-
February 15, 2014 at 11:56 am #9807
Anonymous
hi nawsad! Thank you very much!
-
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.