Hydrogen bonds in Rosetta: a phenomonological study - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 32
About This Presentation
Title:

Hydrogen bonds in Rosetta: a phenomonological study

Description:

Hydrogen bonds in Rosetta. Structure-derived potential of KMB03. Existing definition/scoring ... Rosetta does well at optimizing what it is told. ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:114
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 33
Provided by: Snoe
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Hydrogen bonds in Rosetta: a phenomonological study


1
Hydrogen bonds in Rosettaa phenomonological
study
  • Jack Snoeyink
  • Dept. of Computer Science
  • UNC Chapel Hill

2
Key points
  • My biases
  • Hydrogen bonds in Rosetta
  • Structure-derived potential of KMB03
  • Existing definition/scoring
  • Comparing natives decoys
  • Proposed recategorization
  • Bad smells in code
  • Open questions

3
Phenomenology defined
  • Movement originated by E. Husserl in 1905
  • A philosophy based on the premise that reality
    consists of objects and events as they are
    perceived or understood in human
    consciousness and not of anything independent
    of human consciousness.

4
Phenomenology defined
  • Movement originated by E. Husserl in 1905
  • A philosophy based on the premise that reality
    consists of objects and events as they are
    perceived or understood in human
    consciousness and not of anything independent
    of human consciousness.

5
Structure-derived potential KMB03
  • Energy from observed structures distance
    dependence for helix

6
Structure-derived potential KMB03
  • Energy from observed structures statistically
    derived energies

7
Structure-derived potential KMB03
  • Energy from observed structures as implemented
    in Rosetta

8
Three tasks in Hbond scoring
  • Identify pairs of atoms that Hbond
  • Classify Hbond types
  • Evaluate energies for Hbonds
  • Rosetta mixes these tasks together

9
Three tasks in Hbond scoring
  • As described in KMB03
  • Identify pairs of atoms that Hbond
  • Params AH distance, ?, ?
  • Classify Hbond types
  • BB helix, strand, other AH distance
  • SS,BS,SB acceptor hybridization AH dist
  • Evaluate energies for Hbonds
  • Sum three potentials on AH distance, ?, ?, ?
  • Amino acid weights
  • Residue neighbors for donor/acceptor

10
Three tasks in Hbond scoring
  • As implemented in Rosetta
  • Identify pairs of atoms that Hbond
  • Params AH distance, ?, ?
  • Classify Hbond types
  • BB separation short sep4 long range
  • SS,BS,SB acceptor hybridization AH dist
  • Evaluate energies for Hbonds
  • Sum three potentials on AH distance, ?, ?
  • Amino acid weights OR Residue neighbors for
    donor/acceptor

11
SS bonds native decoy
dist
?
?
?
sp2ED QN bb
sp3TSY
ring H
12
SS bonds native decoy
dist
?
?
?
  • Natives Dunbrack set of 3157 structures
  • some pdb errors
  • Decoys Best 20 for each of Rhijus ab initio
    runs on 62 structures
  • small proteins
  • few parallel beta strands
  • Rosetta places Hs determines Hbonds
  • Filter energies lt -0.1
  • Visualization Tuftes small multiples
  • Normalization
  • Express counts as fraction of all Hbonds to
    support comparison of colors in each plot
  • Plot with common x axis scale y to max height

sp2ED QN bb
sp3TSY
ring H
13
Energy distribution of bonds involving a
sidechain atom before/after filtering
14
Number (and percentage) of bonds under the
existing classification
Counts Counts Percentage Percentage
Native Decoys Native Decoys
BB Helix (/-4) 185,204 38,128 32.28 50.66
BB Turn (/-3) 79,110 8,983 13.79 11.94
BB Other 150,945 19,459 26.31 25.85
S sp2 ED QB bb 132,522 6,448 23.10 8.57
S sp3 TS Y 23,641 2,062 4.12 2.74
S ring H 2,325 184 0.41 0.24
TOTALS 573,747 75,264 100.00 100.00
15
Observations
  • Rosetta does well at optimizing what it is told.
  • Decoy distributions are more sharply peaked than
    natives.
  • Relax preserves more non-helix bonds than ab
    initio, but produces same shapes for param
    distribns.
  • To test changes, it suffices to run relax.

16
SS bonds native decoy
dist
?
?
?
sp2ED QN bb
sp3TSY
ring H
17
SS bonds native decoy
dist
?
?
?
sp2ED QN bb
sp3TSY
ring H
18
SS,BS,SB bonds native decoy
dist
?
?
?
sp2ED QN bb
sp3TSY
ring H
19
  • AH Distance
  • NB
  • donor effects
  • small
  • omit C
  • bimodal H
  • R QNacc

20
  • Theta A-H-D angle
  • NB
  • small s
  • width
  • R NENH

21
  • PsiAHD angle
  • NB
  • RE EDacc

22
  • Chi A2-A torsion
  • NB
  • Polar
  • charged
  • prefs

23
  • __ H-D torsion
  • NB
  • Polar
  • charged
  • prefs

24
Three tasks in Hbond scoring
  • Proposed changes
  • Identify pairs of atoms that Hbond
  • Params AH distance, ?, ?
  • Classify Hbond types
  • BB finer separation (Beta?)
  • SS,BS,SB finer don/acc chemical types
  • Evaluate energies for Hbonds options
  • Sum three potentials on AH distance, ?, ?
  • Potential on three variables AH distance, ?, ?
  • Add neighbors
  • Add a torsion as 4th or 5th variable
  • Weights for tuning different terms

25
Backbone bonds
AH distance
26
Backbone bonds
theta
27
Parallel vs Anti-parallel beta
  • The standard figures are misleading
  • parallel and anti-parallel form similar distance,
    ?, ? distributions.

28
Backbone bonds
psi
29
Backbone bonds
chi torsion
30
Backbone bonds
AH-DD2 torsion
31
Refactoring Hbonds
  • Recategorizing should eliminate long-range
    short-range Hbondswhich are used outside of
    hbonds.cc they shouldnt need to be.
  • Duplicated code in minimizers needs to be brought
    back into hbonds.cc

32
Refactoring
  • In code, a function should do one thing well.
  • When a function you work with is doing too many
    things, split it.
  • Duplicating code indicates that something is
    designed wrong.
  • Avoid magic numbers.
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com