Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[Feedback] Redesign Specific Residues only #78

Open
universvm opened this issue Feb 7, 2024 · 2 comments
Open

[Feedback] Redesign Specific Residues only #78

universvm opened this issue Feb 7, 2024 · 2 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@universvm
Copy link
Member

I would love to be able to specify residues to design. Or full regions. If I have a structure, and I want to be able to (re)design a loop.

@universvm universvm added the enhancement New feature or request label Feb 7, 2024
@sunal1996
Copy link
Collaborator

Working on it at the moment. Managed to implement it for single structures and single chains, and there is a clear path for doing it for multiple structures. However, what if the user wants to specifically fix residues in chain B, C, D etc.? It appears to me that the chain information gets lost when we generate frame datasets, and TIMED puts everything into chain A. If this is correct, I think it gives us two paths:

a) User has to accept that instead of specifying the chain B 15th residue, they will have to specify X+15th residue where X is the length of chain A. Or, if they want to change chain D 3rd residue, they will have to specify the X+Y+Z+3rd residue where X-Y-Z are the lengths of chain A-B-C
b) We will have to figure out a way to not lose this information in frame generation. Later, instead of TIMED outputting the sequence into just one chain (x_A where x is the protein name and A is chain A), maybe it should give x_A, x_B, x_C separately for each chain.

Thoughts? @universvm

@universvm
Copy link
Member Author

universvm commented May 2, 2024

@sunal1996 Output should include chains as we store them in the frames. This is likely a bug #79 . Once that's fixed we should be able to use your implementation :)

@sunal1996 sunal1996 mentioned this issue May 3, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants