3
« Last post by JiaolongBao on June 17, 2026, 02:36:37 am »
Hi Xiang-Jun,
Thanks for your reply and continued effort looking in to source code of DSSR.
I appreciate that you provide the newest version DSSR output regarding 1BNA_L.pdb. In this case, the sign inversion pattern of base-pair parameter is the same as v2.6.0. However, the sign inversion pattern of step/helical bp parameters looks different with v2.6.0 in terms of shift, slide, tilt, roll, x-disp, y-disp, inclination and tip. Out of curiosity, I also downloaded SCHNAaP and X3DNA source code and use them to analyze the 1BNA_L.pdb, which gives me a more "reasonable" sign inversion pattern. I summarized the sign-inversion patterns in the three attached tables. Here, “Yes” means that the sign of the corresponding parameter is reversed between 1BNA.pdb and 1BNA_L.pdb, while “No” means that the sign is preserved. along with SCHNAaP, X3DNA v2.4, DSSR v2.6 and v2.9 for your reference.
As you can see in the tables, SCHNAaP and X3DNA share the same sign inversion pattern for base-pair and step/helical parameters which looks more intuitive to me. Interestingly, DSSR v2.9 now gives the same sign-inversion pattern as SCHNAaP and X3DNA for the step parameters and helical base-pair parameters. However, for the base-pair parameters, DSSR v2.9 still follows the same pattern as DSSR v2.6, which differs from SCHNAaP and X3DNA for shear, stagger, buckle, and opening.
Based on my understanding of SCHNAaP paper (which has very detailed explanation on how to calculate those parameters, although it is outdated since DSSR is using base reference frame), the calculation of base-pair and step/helical parameters is very similar and I believe mirror-image transformation will lead to same sign inversion pattern. I feel the sign inversion of parameters heavily depends on the axis direction and also which axis is determined by right-handed rule. Anyway, I'm more interested in DSSR how to handle this scenario.
Besides, I also notice when DSSR judge the "sugar-class" of L-sugar may have some issues. I guess DSSR is based on the phase angle to determine the sugar class of sugar which is totally fine to D-sugar while it may not be suitable for L-sugar. I believe the chirality inversion of sugar will not affect the sugar class but phase angle should be definetely inversed. For example, DSSR determine the sugar class of nucleotides in 1BNA_L.pdb is C3'-endo while it should be C2'-endo no matter in D or L form B-DNA.
Summary of structural features of 24 nucleotides
Note: the first five columns are: (1) serial number, (2) one-letter
shorthand name, (3) dbn, (4) id string, (5) rmsd (~zero) of base
ring atoms fitted against those in a standard base reference
frame. The sixth (last) column contains a comma-separated list of
features whose meanings are mostly self-explanatory, except for:
turn: angle C1'(i-1)--C1'(i)--C1'(i+1) < 90 degrees
break: no backbone linkage between O3'(i-1) and P(i)
1 C ( A.DC1 0.020 anti,~C3'-endo,canonical,non-pair-contact,helix-end,stem-end
2 G ( A.DG2 0.025 anti,~C3'-endo,canonical,non-pair-contact,helix,stem
3 C ( A.DC3 0.024 anti,canonical,non-pair-contact,helix,stem
4 G ( A.DG4 0.023 anti,~C3'-endo,canonical,non-pair-contact,helix,stem
5 A ( A.DA5 0.016 anti,~C3'-endo,canonical,non-pair-contact,helix,stem
................
I hope our discussion can make DSSR more capable for analysis of L-DNA/RNA. Thanks!
Best regards,
Jiaolong