- This topic has 13 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 7 months ago by Anonymous.
April 11, 2011 at 2:54 am #864Anonymous
I want to model circular permutation together with domain insertion for my protein. Can anybody tell how can I do this using rosetta 3.2 ??
Thanks in advance
April 11, 2011 at 6:12 pm #5358Anonymous
I’m not aware of a good way to do this in 3.2. I’m aware of a few functional, but not stellar, ways to do this that will release in 3.3.
You could consider doing Relax with fairly tight dihedral constraints on the protein cores, and no constraints on the new linker region?
April 14, 2011 at 2:19 pm #5406Anonymous
Thanks for ur reply… but it will be of great help if u elaborate a bit …
April 14, 2011 at 2:26 pm #5407Anonymous
What you really want to do is loop modeling, where the domain insert is treated as a big fixed portion of loop (no internal degrees of freedom changed). This is not possible without modifying the loop modeling code. If you go in and change how the MoveMaps are set up to fix the conformation your inserted domain, you can do CCD loop modeling (and with some more work, KIC too). I can point out the functions to work with if you want to try this, but I can’t write the code for you.
Failing that, you can try Relax mode. You can write a constraint file (http://www.rosettacommons.org/manuals/archive/rosetta3.2.1_user_guide/constraint_file.html) that includes a DihedralConstraint for each torsion in the core of your protein, and in the inserted domain, but no constraints on the “loop” residues. Relax mode will try to model all residues, which is inefficent, but the constraint will prevent it from making changes outside the loop region. This is likely to be very slow compared to code written for the purpose, but it’s the only thing I can think of that you can do in 3.2.
There may be a way to do it with the abinitio “broker” code in 3.2 but there is no documentation for it.
April 15, 2011 at 1:54 pm #5420Anonymous
I think relax mode , will be a better choice … but with this I want to model longer loops of 30 or 40 residue length..
April 15, 2011 at 2:04 pm #5423Anonymous
The length of the loops won’t matter for the relax I’ve described above. Normal loop closure does not work well on loops that long. Nothing in Rosetta (nothing I’m aware of in other programs either) works well on unstructured regions of that length; for structured regions ab initio prediction is your best bet. Do you expect your loops to be internally structured or not?
April 18, 2011 at 5:21 am #5446Anonymous
Yes , I have also been reading some papers that have used ab initio modeling for such long loops… But I don’t understand what’s it meant by – loops to be internally structured ??
April 18, 2011 at 2:29 pm #5447Anonymous
“loops to be internally structured ??”
Is it all loop, or does it have stretches of helix and sheet? Is it fairly rigid in the folded protein, or is it completely flexible? If it’s flexible, then you can sample where it may flex to, but there’s no point in trying to find one single structure because it won’t have only one anyway.
April 25, 2011 at 1:16 am #5452Anonymous
well.. this cannot be answered because I am going to design the loops , and I don’t know which structure they will take.
I think it should be all loop, but for a 50 residue loop there may be a possibility that it can form some secondary structures.So, I want to model it as a flexible chain without any secondary structure constraint.
April 25, 2011 at 2:08 pm #5486Anonymous
With loops that long, you have another option besides relax; you may be able to do docking on your two rigid domains, then do loop modeling between fixed endpoints once you have the domains in place. (You’ll still need fixbb separately to do design). What you really need is a custom program; you could look into writing yourself exactly what you want with RosettaScripts or PyRosetta.
April 25, 2011 at 2:21 pm #5487Anonymous
Thanks for your reply… but writing scripts will be a tough task at the moment. So, if possible can u guide me through modeling the long flexible loops of 30 or 40 residue length at the moment. then later I will hop onto modeling of domain insertion??
Also, I want to know which one will be easier to write programs for – rosetta or pyrosetta.
April 25, 2011 at 3:07 pm #5488Anonymous
Modeling loops should proceed okay with the normal loop modeling executeable. Its function is insensitive to loop length (although it isn’t going to work well on loops that long, as I’ve already described.)
I’m not proficient at either RosettaScripts or PyRosetta.
April 25, 2011 at 4:45 pm #5489Anonymous
Just to clarify, PyRosetta and Rosetta are basically the same thing – PyRosetta is simply a version of the Rosetta library wrapped to be available to Python programs, as opposed to the native C++. RosettaScripts is an application in the C++ version of Rosetta which allows you to build custom protocols via XML files.
RosettaScripts works well if you can conceptualize your proceedure as a sequential application of the basic mover building blocks which are currently available in RosettaScripts (see http://www.rosettacommons.org/manuals/archive/rosetta3.2_user_guide/RosettaScripts.html for a list of available components in 3.2.1)
If you need something that’s not currently available in RosettaScripts, or your proceedure is more complicated than a simple sequential application (e.g. complex conditionals, complicated looping structures), then PyRosetta would be a better choice. (PyRosetta can handle the simple sequential protocols as well). You have access to almost all of the Rosetta library, but through a convenient, full-featured scripting language (Python).
A third option, if you’re especially hard-core or doing something that’s not possible with RosettaScripts or PyRosetta, is to write a new Rosetta executable in C++ (or modify an existing one) and compile it, linking in the Rosetta library. This gives you the most flexibility with Rosetta, but it’s also the most prone to frustration. I’d definitely recommend trying RosettaScripts/PyRosetta first.
April 27, 2011 at 12:02 pm #5492Anonymous
I have found a paper published by Dr. Baker’s group in which they have modeled longer loops of length 40 and 50 residues. So, I think I can give it a try .
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.