Member Site › Forums › Rosetta 3 › Rosetta 3 – Applications › comparative modelling and broker
- This topic has 4 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 6 months ago by
Anonymous.
-
AuthorPosts
-
-
February 5, 2013 at 4:33 pm #1509
Anonymous
Hi,
I am trying to perform an abinitio modelling of the full-length structure of a two domains protein, having the crystal structure of the Nterminal one. If I try to use a similar protocol as the demo of comparative modelling with end extension the program stops with the following error:
ERROR: moving_connection.icoor().is_internal() && fixed_connection.icoor().is_internal()
ERROR:: Exit from: src/core/conformation/util.cc line: 100sometimes the first pdb that comes out is ok, but when it crashes, the position of both domains is strangely far away.
Thanks in advance!
felipet
-
February 5, 2013 at 8:46 pm #8374
Anonymous
This isn’t really enough evidence to help us debug the problem. I can tell you that in general, this is an error that occurs when adding residues to a pose; probably it is occurring when Rosetta is tacking the unknown-portion residues onto the known-portion residues.
My best guess is a misalignment or misnumbering in the input files; for example your alignment inputs tell Rosetta that there are 100 residues in the N-terminal domain, but it only contains 96 readable residues (perhaps because of nonzero occupancies, or undetected funny numbering). This guess is a little inconsistent with the “sometimes it crashes, sometimes it works but wrong” aspect, but very consistent with what historically causes problems for this sort of modeling.
-
February 6, 2013 at 2:36 pm #8376
Anonymous
Hi
thanks for the response
I checked the pdb and I didn’t find anything unusual
the broker.arg is identical as the demo and the files I am using are almost the same:
file.tbp:
CLAIMER RigidChunkClaimer
REGION_FILE S_0029.pdb_1_126.region
PDB_FILE S_0029.pdb
END_CLAIMERfile.region
RIGID 1 126 0 0 0
the only different thing is that I am trying to model the C-terminal domain. I also saw the following in the output:
protocols.general_abinitio: (0) AbrelaxMover: S_0001
loops: (0) Extended: (-3,+0) LOOP 124 326 0 0 0
protocols.topo_broker: (0) Enlarged loops:
protocols.topo_broker: (0) LOOP begin end cut skip_rate extended
protocols.topo_broker: (0) LOOP 124 326 0 0 0this is not right because the modelling part is between the residue 127 and the end (position 199). What I found completely weird is that the first cycle worked fine, with a pdb at the end with 199 residues all connected. But in the second cycle the error appears and both domains are too far away from each other.
thanks
felipet
-
February 6, 2013 at 4:11 pm #8381
Anonymous
sorry…I solved the problem. I didn’t realize that I have to start with the full-length protein as a model
thanks
-
February 6, 2013 at 4:19 pm #8383
Anonymous
Glad to hear it!
-
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.