Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Notice: The 3DNA Forum is now a read-only archive. See the announcement.
All active support and discussions have moved to GitHub Discussions!

Messages - xiangjun

Pages: 1 ... 41 42 [43] 44 45 ... 67
1051
General discussions (Q&As) / Re: Frame_mol options do not seem to function.
« on: February 05, 2014, 07:03:08 pm »
I cannot see any problem from your sample usage of the frame_mol program. Could you provide a reproducible example to illustrate your goal and the problems you experienced?

Have a look of worked examples in directories $X3DNA/examples/calladine_drew and $X3DNA/np_recipes/R2_roll_bending distributed with 3DNA.

HTH,

Xiang-Jun

1052
General discussions (Q&As) / Re: What other software is available?
« on: February 04, 2014, 09:51:11 am »
Try the BGSU RNA Structural Bioinformatics resources by the Leontis-Zirbel Co-lab.

Xiang-Jun

1053
RNA structures (DSSR) / Re: dssr corrupted double-linked list: issue
« on: January 31, 2014, 03:24:51 pm »
Hi Pascal,

As a follow up, I have checked the troublesome 2OIU.py.pdb on a Ubuntu Linux (64-bit) machine, and was able to reproduce the bug. Interesting, the issue did not show up with the original PDB entry 2oiu; otherwise, I've have caught it ;D. As noted in my previous reply, this bug did not show up on Mac OS X either. So in the future bug report, please remember to give sufficient details.

Anyway, thanks for using DSSR under 'extreme' conditions, which certainly helps to make the program more robust. In DSSR v1.0.1-2014jan31, this bug has been fixed, among a few other improvements. Have a try, and report back if you have further issues.

Best regards,

Xiang-Jun

1054
RNA structures (DSSR) / Re: Question on Multiplets
« on: January 31, 2014, 03:12:39 pm »
Hi Eugene,

I've refined the algorithm for multiplets detection, now 2RSK (model #8) contains what one would expect:

Quote
****************************************************************************
List of 4 multiplets
   1 nts=4 GGGG 8:A.G2,8:A.G5,8:A.G8,8:A.G11
   2 nts=4 GGGG 8:B.G14,8:B.G17,8:B.G20,8:B.G23
   3 nts=7 GAGAGAG 8:A.G1,8:A.A3,8:A.G4,8:A.A6,8:A.G7,8:A.A9,8:A.G10
   4 nts=7 GAGAGAG 8:B.G13,8:B.A15,8:B.G16,8:B.A18,8:B.G19,8:B.A21,8:B.G22

An image of multiplet #4 is attached below for your reference.

Please check out DSSR v1.0.1-2014jan31 for the update.

Xiang-Jun

1055
RNA structures (DSSR) / Re: dssr corrupted double-linked list: issue
« on: January 31, 2014, 09:13:05 am »
Hi Pascal,

Thanks for reporting the issue you experienced with DSSR. Could you be more specific to help me reproduce the bug? Which version, on what platform, with what options did you use? When I tried 2OIU.py.pdb on my iMac, DSSR seems to be working (see below):

Code: [Select]
Processing file '2OIU.py.pdb' [2OIU.py]

total number of base pairs: 74
total number of multiplets: 6
total number of helices: 6
total number of stems: 12
total number of hairpin loops: 6
total number of bulges: 2
total number of internal loops: 4
total number of junctions: 2
total number of non-loop single-stranded segments: 12
total number of kissing loops: 0
total number of A-minor (type I and II) motifs: 4
total number of ribose zippers: 8 (27)
total number of kink turns: 0

This is likely a bug that only shows up in rare cases, presumably associated with your non-standard PDB file (2OIU.py.pdb). I'll try my best to fix the bug as soon as I can clearly identify it.

Best regards,

Xiang-Jun

1056
RNA structures (DSSR) / Re: Question on Multiplets
« on: January 28, 2014, 04:59:03 pm »
Hi Eugene,

That's the expected behavior right now. The "*" as in the 4th multiplet "nts=10*" means boundary cases where some bases are 'stacking' instead of being co-planar. Visualizing this multiplet in Jmol/PyMOL, you will notice that 8.A.A.3./8.A.A.6./8.A.A.9. are not far off, especially when 8.B.A.15. and 8.B.A.21. are not taken into consideration. In future releases of DSSR, I may consider to refine the algorithm to avoid any nt belonging to more then one multiplet.

Regarding the definition, more details will be available in the coming DSSR mauscript. Right now, suffice it to say that "DSSR detects triplets and higher-order base associations by searching horizontally in the plane of the associated bp for further H-bonding interactions" as put in the DSSR webpage and output from the -h (--help) option.

Users are strongly encouraged to upgrade to DSSR v1.0-2014jan25, which contains improved notes and formats in the output .

HTH,

Xiang-Jun

1057
General discussions (Q&As) / Re: DNA extending
« on: January 27, 2014, 02:03:58 pm »
Hi Julianna,

Thanks for your follow-up. In addition to serving your purpose of extending DNA from both ends, the PDB entry 1da0 is a good example to help illustrate one subtle point in 3DNA.

By default, 3DNA handles one structure at a time. When given an ensemble (as in NMR) with multiple structures in MODEL/ENDMDL delineated PDB format, 3DNA only analyzes the first model. Since 1da0 is symmetrical, with only one chain (and one daunomycin) in the asymmetric unit, you should download the coordinates in biological unit. The file name would be 1da0.pdb1 (the first and only biological assembly), where the two symmetric-related chains are separated by MODEL/ENDMDL pairs:
Code: [Select]
HETATM  158  O5' DM1 A   7     -12.846   8.039   6.403  1.00 23.07           O 
HETATM  159  C6' DM1 A   7     -14.267   6.866   7.856  1.00 18.53           C 
ENDMDL                                                                         
MODEL        2                                                                 
ATOM      1  O5'  DC A   1     -20.437  18.629   3.262  1.00 14.14           O 
ATOM      2  C5'  DC A   1     -21.455  17.960   2.453  1.00  8.69           C 
To proceed with 3DNA, make the ENDMDL record defective by adding a '#' (or a space) in front of it:
Code: [Select]
#ENDMDLLet's call the modified file 1da0-biou.pdb (attached), which is the starting point of following steps.

First, run find_pair to identify base pairs (bps), and generate the reference frame file (ref_frames.dat):
Code: [Select]
1da0-biou.pdb
1da0-biou.out
    2         # duplex
    6         # number of base-pairs
    1    1    # explicit bp numbering/hetero atoms
    1   13  0 #    1 | ...1>A:...1_:[.DC]C-----G[.DG]:...6_:A<...2  0.47  0.02  5.52  8.64 -4.21
    2   12  0 #    2 | ...1>A:...2_:[.DG]G-----C[.DC]:...5_:A<...2  0.45  0.20 11.07  8.54 -1.60
    3   11  0 #    3 | ...1>A:...3_:[.DA]A-----T[.DT]:...4_:A<...2  0.75  0.01  8.35  8.62 -3.81
    4   10  0 #    4 | ...1>A:...4_:[.DT]T-----A[.DA]:...3_:A<...2  0.75  0.01  8.35  8.62 -3.81
    5    9  0 #    5 | ...1>A:...5_:[.DC]C-----G[.DG]:...2_:A<...2  0.45  0.20 11.07  8.54 -1.60
    6    8  0 #    6 | ...1>A:...6_:[.DG]G-----C[.DC]:...1_:A<...2  0.47  0.02  5.52  8.64 -4.21
##### Base-pair criteria used:     4.00     0.00    15.00     2.50    65.00     4.50     7.80 [ O N]
##### 0 non-Watson-Crick base-pairs, and 1 helix (0 isolated bps)
##### Helix #1 (6): 1 - 6
To extend the structure at the 3' end, run:
Code: [Select]
frame_mol -6 ref_frames.dat 1da0-biou.pdb 1da0-biou-ref6.pdbto get file 1da0-biou-ref6.pdb where the structure is in the reference frame of bp #6 (i.e., the last bp).

Then, use the fiber command to generate a B-DNA duplex of your preferred sequence:
Code: [Select]
fiber -seq=AATTTCCGGG frag3.pdbHere the sequence is AATTTCCGGG, and the resultant duplex is named frag3.pdb.

Now set frag3.pdb in the reference frame of the first bp, and name the resultant file frag3-ref1.pdb:
Code: [Select]
find_pair frag3.pdb stdout
frame_mol -1 ref_frames.dat frag3.pdb frag3-ref1.pdb

Now you can combine structures 1da0-biou-ref6.pdb and frag3-ref1.pdb, since they share a common reference frame, into a file named 1da0-biou-extend3.pdb (attached):
Code: [Select]
comb_str 1da0-biou-ref6.pdb frag3-ref1.pdb 1da0-biou-extend3.pdb
Display 1da0-biou-extend3.pdb using Jmol/PyMOL, you will see that 1da0 has been extended in its 3'-end (see figure below). Note the overlap of atoms at the joint bp. You need to remove the redundant part to get a sensible DNA structure.

The method outlined here may look complicated, but it is essential to get a clear understand of the underlying principles. Once passing through the hurdle, it won't be that difficult to automate the whole process to achieve what you want efficiently and reproducibly.

You can follow a similar procedure to extend 1da0 in the 5'-end. It would help if you work out the details and share back with the community.

HTH,

Xiang-Jun

1058
General discussions (Q&As) / Re: DNA extending
« on: January 26, 2014, 01:36:23 pm »
Welcome to join the 3DNA user community!

Yes, it should be possible, at least in principle. Please provide a concrete example of what you want to achieve, and we will start from there.

Xiang-Jun

1059
FAQs / How do I cite DSSR?
« on: January 22, 2014, 11:14:55 pm »
The following DSSR article, recently appeared in Nucleic Acids Res., should be used as the primary citation:
  • X.J. Lu, H.J. Bussemaker & W.K. Olson (2015). "DSSR: an integrated software tool for dissecting the spatial structure of RNA." Nucleic Acids Res. 43(21), e142 (doi:10.1093/nar/gkv716).
Optionally, you may also want to mention one of the two 3DNA papers:
  • X.J. Lu & W.K. Olson (2008). "3DNA: a versatile, integrated software system for the analysis, rebuilding and visualization of three-dimensional nucleic-acid structures." Nat. Protoc. 3(7), 1213-1227.
  • X.J. Lu & W.K. Olson (2003). "3DNA: a software package for the analysis, rebuilding and visualization of three-dimensional nucleic acid structures." Nucleic Acids Res. 31(17), 5108-5121.

1060
Quote
xiangjun could you please elaborate why you suggest deleting the O2 atoms.
Assuming one knows how how to predict a ssRNA structure with Rosetta etc, to convert to a corresponding ssDNA structure, I was suggesting to mutate U to T, and to remove O2' atoms (which are RNA specific). Does that make sense? Of course, a software/server for direct ssDNA structure prediction would be better.

Xiang-Jun

1061
Hi Eugene,

Thanks for reporting DSSR's omission to report the "total number of U-turns:" in the diagnostic command-line output. This inconsistency has been fixed in DSSR beta-r30, which contains many other significant formatting improvements, and further refinements on loop finding. See below for running DSSR on 1ffk (x3dna-dssr -i=1ffk.pdb -o=1ffk.out -u-turn):
Code: [Select]
Processing file '1ffk.pdb' [1ffk]

total number of base pairs: 1406
total number of multiplets: 219
total number of helices: 104
total number of stems: 175
total number of hairpin loops: 66
total number of bulges: 35
total number of internal loops: 66
total number of junctions: 33
total number of pseudo-knots: 22
total number of non-loop single-stranded segments: 32
total number of kissing loops: 1
total number of A-minor (type I and II) motifs: 93
total number of U-turns: 28
total number of ribose zippers: 41 (237)
total number of kink turns: 6

I will release DSSR beta-r30, presumably the last beta version, in a couple of days. In the meantime, please keep reporting back any other suggestions you may have.

Best regards,

Xiang-Jun

1062
Greetings, DSSR users!

It is over ten months since DSSR beta-r01-on-20130303 was first made public. Over the time, thanks to the feedback of many enthusiastic users, DSSR has been continuously developed and improved. I believe the software is now solid enough for v1.0, to be released in the near future.

If you have any comments on DSSR in general, its output style in particular, please do let me know. I will try to accommodate as much of your feedback as practical in the DSSR v1.0 release.

Best regards,

Xiang-Jun


1063
General discussions (Q&As) / Re: Problem with installing 3DNA on Linux
« on: January 05, 2014, 11:01:08 am »
A quick Google search using your 'uname -a' output reveals that the issue may well be due to libc compatibility. You did not mention, but I assume you are using 3DNA v2.1. The recently distributed v2.1 has been compiled on CentOS 5, with details as below:
Quote
2.6.18-194.17.1.el5 #1 SMP Wed Sep 29 12:50:31 EDT 2010 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux

I believe 3DNA v2.0, which was compiled around 2008, should work on your machine. Alternative, upgrading your Linux should also do the trick. Please have a try of either approach and report back how it goes.

HTH,

Xiang-Jun

1064
General discussions (Q&As) / Re: Problem with installing 3DNA on Linux
« on: December 29, 2013, 11:18:08 am »
Could you be more specific with your Linux distribution? Is it 32-bit or 64-bit? What's the output of running uname -a?

Xiang-Jun

1065
RNA structures (DSSR) / Re: A bug with missing right-side type bulges
« on: December 25, 2013, 07:49:58 pm »
Hi Eugene,

The missing right-type bulges bug has been fixed in DSSR beta-r28-on-20131225. Please have a try and report back how it goes.

For PDB entry 1ffk, chain 9, the corresponding output section now looks like below:
Code: [Select]
****************************************************************************
List of 2 hairpin loop(s)
   1 nts=4 GCGA closed by pair {9.C89+9.G94 [CG], #8}
       9.C89+9.G90+9.C91+9.G92+9.A93+9.G94 [CGCGAG]
   2 nts=5 AUCCC closed by pair {9.C37+9.G43 [CG], #-1}
       9.C37+9.A38+9.U39+9.C40+9.C41+9.C42+9.G43 [CAUCCCG]

****************************************************************************
List of 3 bulge(s)
   1 bulge: 5 nts; [0x1]; linked by [#2, #3]
       9.C15+9.G16+9.C64+9.A65+9.G66 [CGCAG]
       0 nts bulge ; 9.C15-->9.G16 [CG]
       1 nts bulge 9.A65 [A]; 9.C64-->9.G66 [CAG]
   2 bulge: 6 nts; [0x2]; linked by [#4, #5]
       9.C29+9.C30+9.G50+9.A51+9.A52+9.G53 [CCGAAG]
       0 nts bulge ; 9.C29-->9.C30 [CC]
       2 nts bulge 9.A51+9.A52 [AA]; 9.G50-->9.G53 [GAAG]
   3 bulge: 5 nts; [1x0]; linked by [#7, #8]
       9.G86+9.U87+9.G88+9.C95+9.C96 [GUGCC]
       1 nts bulge 9.U87 [U]; 9.G86-->9.G88 [GUG]
       0 nts bulge ; 9.C95-->9.C96 [CC]

****************************************************************************
List of 3 internal loop(s)
   1 asymmetric internal loop: 14 nts; [6x4]; linked by [#3, #4]
       9.G21+9.G22+9.U23+9.U24+9.G25+9.C26+9.C27+9.U28+9.A54+9.U55+9.A56+9.A57+9.G58+9.C59 [GGUUGCCUAUAAGC]
       6 nts iloop 9.G22+9.U23+9.U24+9.G25+9.C26+9.C27 [GUUGCC]; 9.G21-->9.U28 [GGUUGCCU]
       4 nts iloop 9.U55+9.A56+9.A57+9.G58 [UAAG]; 9.A54-->9.C59 [AUAAGC]
   2 symmetric internal loop: 10 nts; [3x3]; linked by [#5, #-1]
       9.U33+9.A34+9.C35+9.C36+9.C37+9.G43+9.A44+9.A45+9.C46+9.A47 [UACCCGAACA]
       3 nts iloop 9.A34+9.C35+9.C36 [ACC]; 9.U33-->9.C37 [UACCC]
       3 nts iloop 9.A44+9.A45+9.C46 [AAC]; 9.G43-->9.A47 [GAACA]
   3 asymmetric internal loop: 13 nts; [5x4]; linked by [#6, #7]
       9.G75+9.G76+9.A77+9.G78+9.U79+9.A80+9.C81+9.G101+9.G102+9.A103+9.A104+9.A105+9.C106 [GGAGUACGGAAAC]
       5 nts iloop 9.G76+9.A77+9.G78+9.U79+9.A80 [GAGUA]; 9.G75-->9.C81 [GGAGUAC]
       4 nts iloop 9.G102+9.A103+9.A104+9.A105 [GAAA]; 9.G101-->9.C106 [GGAAAC]

****************************************************************************
List of 1 junction(s)
   1 3-way junctions: 16 nts; [4x3x3]; linked by [#1, #2, #6]
       9.C9+9.C10+9.A11+9.C12+9.A13+9.G14+9.C67+9.G68+9.U69+9.U70+9.C71+9.G110+9.U111+9.U112+9.C113+9.G114 [CCACAGCGUUCGUUCG]
       4 nts junction 9.C10+9.A11+9.C12+9.A13 [CACA]; 9.C9-->9.G14 [CCACAG]
       3 nts junction 9.G68+9.U69+9.U70 [GUU]; 9.C67-->9.C71 [CGUUC]
       3 nts junction 9.U111+9.U112+9.C113 [UUC]; 9.G110-->9.G114 [GUUCG]

****************************************************************************
List of 2 non-loop single-stranded segment(s)
   1 nts=3 9.U1-->9.A3 [UUA]
   2 nts=3 9.A120-->9.C122 [ACC]

Again, thanks for reporting the bug!

Xiang-Jun

Originally posted on: December 25, 2013, 03:00:25 PM

1066
RNA structures (DSSR) / Re: A bug with missing right-side type bulges
« on: December 25, 2013, 07:49:06 pm »
Hi Eugene,

Thanks for reporting the bulging issue. Your example (PDB id 1ffk, chain 9) clearly illustrates a bug in DSSR for detecting bulges. The nts missed in right bulges are classified as single-stranded. So the two manifestations are of the same origin.

Over the past couple of weeks, I've actually been thinking about tidying up the algorithm for identifying the various loops and presenting them consistently. Your bug report fits just in time. I will try to fix the issue soon.

Best regards,

Xiang-Jun

Originally posted on December 25, 2013, 11:30:20 AM

1067
RNA structures (DSSR) / Re: A bug with missing right-side type bulges
« on: December 25, 2013, 07:47:35 pm »
Good Afternoon, Dr. Lu.

I think I've found a real bug with bulges in DSSR:

Bulges can be of two types - "right" ([0xN]) and "left" ([Nx0]).  I looked at all pdb files with RNA and found that in DSSR output there are just 4 cases of right bulges (from about 8500 bulges) and all these 4 cases are bulges between different rna chains! (strand1 - one chain; strand2 - another chain). I'm sorry but now I can't remember in which files these 4 cases were. But the main problem is that DSSR has no proper right bulges!

One example:

file 1FFK, chain 9:

I attached picture of its secondary structure (1FFK_9.png, made with VARNA).

As you can see from picture there are 3 bulges on this structure:

1) .9.A.65.                (right bulge of form [0x1])
2) .9.A.51.+.9.A.52. (right bulge of form [0x2])
3) .9.U.87.                (left bulge of form  [1x0])

I also attached DSSR ouput (1FFK.out1), from which you can see:

bulge number 3 ([1x0]):
Code: [Select]
  12 bulge: 5 nts; [1x0]; linked by [#174, #175]
       .9.G.86.+.9.U.87.+.9.G.88.+.9.C.95.+.9.C.96. [GUGCC]
       1 nts bulge .9.U.87. [U]; .9.G.86.-->.9.G.88. [GUG]
       0 nts bulge ; .9.C.95.-->.9.C.96. [CC]
so far so good
and now bulges number 1 and 2 are in non-loop single-stranded segments section:
Code: [Select]
  93 nts=2 .9.A.51.+.9.A.52. [AA]
  94 nts=1 .9.A.65. [A]
I know that 1FFK is not the only file where right bulges exist, so I think that's a common bug.
I hope my explanation was useful.

Best regards,
Eugene

Originally posted on: December 24, 2013, 05:57:21 AM

1068
RNA structures (DSSR) / A bug with missing right-side type bulges
« on: December 25, 2013, 07:29:36 pm »
This thread is to replace the original one titled "an issue with bulges" stared by febos. Somehow, the URL with the original thread does not reflect the topic, and trying to fix the issue leads to a broken link :( when clicking directly on the topic subject. [Note added on 2014-01-10: the broken URL bug has been fixed.]

The original thread with three posts is still kept for record, and this new thread is a direct copy of the original posts.

Xiang-Jun

1069
RNA structures (DSSR) / Re: an issue with bulges
« on: December 25, 2013, 03:00:25 pm »
Hi Eugene,

The missing right-type bulges bug has been fixed in DSSR beta-r28-on-20131225. Please have a try and report back how it goes.

For PDB entry 1ffk, chain 9, the corresponding output section now looks like below:
Code: [Select]
****************************************************************************
List of 2 hairpin loop(s)
   1 nts=4 GCGA closed by pair {9.C89+9.G94 [CG], #8}
       9.C89+9.G90+9.C91+9.G92+9.A93+9.G94 [CGCGAG]
   2 nts=5 AUCCC closed by pair {9.C37+9.G43 [CG], #-1}
       9.C37+9.A38+9.U39+9.C40+9.C41+9.C42+9.G43 [CAUCCCG]

****************************************************************************
List of 3 bulge(s)
   1 bulge: 5 nts; [0x1]; linked by [#2, #3]
       9.C15+9.G16+9.C64+9.A65+9.G66 [CGCAG]
       0 nts bulge ; 9.C15-->9.G16 [CG]
       1 nts bulge 9.A65 [A]; 9.C64-->9.G66 [CAG]
   2 bulge: 6 nts; [0x2]; linked by [#4, #5]
       9.C29+9.C30+9.G50+9.A51+9.A52+9.G53 [CCGAAG]
       0 nts bulge ; 9.C29-->9.C30 [CC]
       2 nts bulge 9.A51+9.A52 [AA]; 9.G50-->9.G53 [GAAG]
   3 bulge: 5 nts; [1x0]; linked by [#7, #8]
       9.G86+9.U87+9.G88+9.C95+9.C96 [GUGCC]
       1 nts bulge 9.U87 [U]; 9.G86-->9.G88 [GUG]
       0 nts bulge ; 9.C95-->9.C96 [CC]

****************************************************************************
List of 3 internal loop(s)
   1 asymmetric internal loop: 14 nts; [6x4]; linked by [#3, #4]
       9.G21+9.G22+9.U23+9.U24+9.G25+9.C26+9.C27+9.U28+9.A54+9.U55+9.A56+9.A57+9.G58+9.C59 [GGUUGCCUAUAAGC]
       6 nts iloop 9.G22+9.U23+9.U24+9.G25+9.C26+9.C27 [GUUGCC]; 9.G21-->9.U28 [GGUUGCCU]
       4 nts iloop 9.U55+9.A56+9.A57+9.G58 [UAAG]; 9.A54-->9.C59 [AUAAGC]
   2 symmetric internal loop: 10 nts; [3x3]; linked by [#5, #-1]
       9.U33+9.A34+9.C35+9.C36+9.C37+9.G43+9.A44+9.A45+9.C46+9.A47 [UACCCGAACA]
       3 nts iloop 9.A34+9.C35+9.C36 [ACC]; 9.U33-->9.C37 [UACCC]
       3 nts iloop 9.A44+9.A45+9.C46 [AAC]; 9.G43-->9.A47 [GAACA]
   3 asymmetric internal loop: 13 nts; [5x4]; linked by [#6, #7]
       9.G75+9.G76+9.A77+9.G78+9.U79+9.A80+9.C81+9.G101+9.G102+9.A103+9.A104+9.A105+9.C106 [GGAGUACGGAAAC]
       5 nts iloop 9.G76+9.A77+9.G78+9.U79+9.A80 [GAGUA]; 9.G75-->9.C81 [GGAGUAC]
       4 nts iloop 9.G102+9.A103+9.A104+9.A105 [GAAA]; 9.G101-->9.C106 [GGAAAC]

****************************************************************************
List of 1 junction(s)
   1 3-way junctions: 16 nts; [4x3x3]; linked by [#1, #2, #6]
       9.C9+9.C10+9.A11+9.C12+9.A13+9.G14+9.C67+9.G68+9.U69+9.U70+9.C71+9.G110+9.U111+9.U112+9.C113+9.G114 [CCACAGCGUUCGUUCG]
       4 nts junction 9.C10+9.A11+9.C12+9.A13 [CACA]; 9.C9-->9.G14 [CCACAG]
       3 nts junction 9.G68+9.U69+9.U70 [GUU]; 9.C67-->9.C71 [CGUUC]
       3 nts junction 9.U111+9.U112+9.C113 [UUC]; 9.G110-->9.G114 [GUUCG]

****************************************************************************
List of 2 non-loop single-stranded segment(s)
   1 nts=3 9.U1-->9.A3 [UUA]
   2 nts=3 9.A120-->9.C122 [ACC]

Again, thanks for reporting the bug!

Xiang-Jun

1070
RNA structures (DSSR) / Re: an issue with bulges
« on: December 24, 2013, 11:30:20 am »
Hi Eugene,

Thanks for reporting the bulging issue. Your example (PDB id 1ffk, chain 9) clearly illustrates a bug in DSSR for detecting bulges. The nts missed in right bulges are classified as single-stranded. So the two manifestations are of the same origin.

Over the past couple of weeks, I've actually been thinking about tidying up the algorithm for identifying the various loops and presenting them consistently. Your bug report fits just in time. I will try to fix the issue soon.

Best regards,

Xiang-Jun

1071
MD simulations / Re: dna torsional angle wheels
« on: December 14, 2013, 11:37:55 am »
Hi Ara,

The torsion wheel images you referred to look very nice and compact. You may need to contact to original author (or the PI) of the figures for further details. In the meantime, have a look of the thread "How to make a nice visualization for angle distribution?".

Xiang-Jun

1072
General discussions (Q&As) / Re: How to calculate Bending?
« on: December 12, 2013, 09:11:28 am »
Does the corresponding entry How to calculate DNA bending angle? help? Searching the Forum will lead you to more discussions on this topic.

You may also want to try Curves/Curves+.

Xiang-Jun

1073
General discussions (Q&As) / Re: determining helical pitch of curved DNA
« on: December 10, 2013, 03:18:36 pm »
Quote
I wonder if there are plans to implement such a property for calculation in 3DNA?
In principle, I'd be interested in implementing such a property in 3DNA. To that end, I need direct access to details: either a worked example, or a working program with sample input and output files. Pure text descriptions or mathematical formula as often seen in scientific publications help for general understanding, but they are certainly not enough from a programatic point of view.

Xiang-Jun

1074
General discussions (Q&As) / Re: determining helical pitch of curved DNA
« on: December 05, 2013, 12:14:18 pm »
Hi Alexey,

Thanks for using 3DNA and posting your questions on the Forum.

Quote
It has been speculated for quite some time, that the DNA in nucleosomes is over twisted (approx. 10 bp per turn instead of 10.5), so I want to show this using 3DNA analysis. An intuitive way to get the value of average helical pitch would be summing the values of twist returned by 3DNA along the DNA and dividing by the number of base pairs. However, I'm not quite sure if this approach is rigorous, and whether one should sum up the values of helical twist of dimer step twist. What do you think?
I am aware of the paper "Helical repeat of DNA in solution" by Wang (PNAS 1979) where it was found that "Analysis of the set ... gives the DNA helix repeat in solution as 10.4 base pairs per turn under physiological conditions, with an estimated probable error of +/- 0.1." The "twist" measurement here is an average of covalently closed DNAs. In my understanding, it is related to linker number and writhe, but differs from the dinucleotide-step twist angles from 3DNA. See "Two perspectives on the twist of DNA" by Tobias et al. However, why not pursue your "intuitive way" further to see what you can get. It won't take much time, and the result (whatever it could be) would be informative.

Quote
2) During MD simulations some base pairs might become distorted and they are not found by find_pairs. I can force the calculations on them by manually editing .inp file, however, I assume that the Twist, Roll, Tilt values reported for the base pair steps would be arbitrary.
Will the summation of all twist angles along the DNA helix be meaningful in this case in order to obtain overall twist of the DNA helix?
Two points here. Regarding the issues of 'local' vs 'overall' twist, see above. Distorted base-pairs do not have "arbitrary" step parameters: they are derived based on the geometry given in a PDB/mmCIF input file, and can be used to 'rigorously' rebuild the original base pairs. More generally, the default cutoffs in 3DNA are a good starting point. However, there are always boundary cases where the choice is sort of arbitrary. For example, the vertical separation (stagger) is 2.5 Å by default. So a dinucleotide step with a value of 2.49 Å would satisfy this criterion, whereas 2.51 Å won't.

HTH,

Xiang-Jun
 

1075
RNA structures (DSSR) / Re: Bug report of DSSR beta
« on: December 03, 2013, 03:24:30 pm »
Hi Eugene,

The bug has been fixed in DSSR beta-r27-on-20131203. Now the output looks like below:

Code: [Select]
        bp1_pars:  [-1.59    0.32     -0.26    1.95     -3.60    -43.73]
       step_pars:  [2.96     -1.31    3.22     -5.29    6.77     34.80]
       heli_pars:  [-3.00    -5.49    2.46     11.10    8.68     35.82]
        bp2_pars:  [-2.37    -0.60    0.11     4.67     -7.75    -2.95]

Please have a try, and keep reporting back any bugs you may find!

Thanks,

Xiang-Jun

Pages: 1 ... 41 42 [43] 44 45 ... 67
This forum is archived. Please post new questions on GitHub Discussions!