RosettaAntibodyDesign] How can I use run_relax and run_snugdock as part of my command and workflow?

Member Site Forums Rosetta 3 Rosetta 3 – Applications RosettaAntibodyDesign] How can I use run_relax and run_snugdock as part of my command and workflow?

Viewing 1 reply thread
  • Author
    Posts
    • #3423
      Anonymous

        I am trying to run a basic antibody/antigen design/dock simulaton using RosettaAntibodyDesign (from Rosetta 3.12)

        I am using the command:


        antibody_designer.macosclangrelease
        -database /path/to/database/
        -do_dock
        -use_epitope_constraints
        -nstruct 5 -in:file:s complex_renumbered.pdb
        -seq_design_cdrs H1 H2 H3
        -primary_cdrs H3
        -mintype relax
        -run_snugdock
        -run_relax
        -out:path:all ./output

         

        And it appears to run well – it outputs the predicted designed structures. However, as part of the output, I am seeing:


        [ WARNING ] The following options have been set, but have not yet been used:
        -antibody:design:run_relax
        -antibody:run_snugdock

        which indicates the relaxing and snugdock tasks did not run.

        How can I get RosettaAntibodyDesign to respect these flags and tasks? According to the documentation, it looks like I am specifying the flags correctly.

        Thanks!

      • #15288
        Anonymous

          Hello!  

          I definitely need to update the documentation.  I refactored all of it a while ago, and took these options out.  I will add them to the deprecated options. 

          Snugdock took way too long.  A colleague has a Pull Request up that shortens the run time for Snugdock by a huge margin – so be on the lookout for that. 

          All my designs I’ve created and run a post relax on failed.  My guess is because relax adds a lot of noise.  So I removed it.  You are welcome to use RAbD in a RosettaScript and relax and/or run Snugdock afterwards by calling the mover.

           

          -Jared

          • #15289
            Anonymous

              Great! Thank you for the comments. I guess this was just a case of outdated documentation, so no worries.

              The remaining protocol is seemingly working as expected.

               

        Viewing 1 reply thread
        • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.