You are here

Unsolved

The problem hasn't been solved

Atomic refinement with fixed ligand

Category: 
Structure prediction

I'm refining tubulin based on this tutorial here: https://www.rosettacommons.org/demos/latest/public/electron_density_structure_refinement/structure_refinement

Is there a way to include the nucleotides in the refinement so as to prevent other parts of the structure from going into the nucleotide densities, but imposing a restriction on their movement or not include them in the refinement per se?

Post Situation: 

Rosetta paralle running

Category: 
Structure prediction

Dear Rosetta people,

I have been installed rosetta3.9 on our local cluster. To do that, I have used the following command to compile the Rosetta and enable mpi ability after I copy the $ROSETTA_PATH/main/source/tools/build/site.settings.topsail file to the $ROSETTA_PATH/main/source/tools/build/site.settings:

./scons.py mode=release extras=mpi bin -j 20

Post Situation: 

Relax with RDC data gives segmentation fault

Category: 
Constraints

Hi,

When I try to use RDC data together with structure refinement (relax), it faults (see the command I tried below). 

relax.linuxgccrelease -in:file:s test.pdb -in:file:rdc test.rdc -score:weights talaris2013 -score:patch rdc_patch -out:pdb -nstruct 20

The rdc_patch has rdc score term. 

The segmentation fault appears when we use talaris2014 or ref2015 score wts as well. I tried this with a different set of  PDB and RDC files, I see the same issue.

 

Post Situation: 

Rosetta structure refinement alters bound ligand

Category: 
Structure prediction

I'm refining tubulin based on this tutorial here: https://www.rosettacommons.org/demos/latest/public/electron_density_structure_refinement/structure_refinement

I save the nucleotides and separate pdb files, convert them into mol2 and generate params file that I pass to Rosetta.

It seems, however, that Rosetta completely flips the orientation of the nucleotides. 

Post Situation: 

Question about FlexPepDock score

Category: 
Docking

Hey all! I just have a couple of questions:

01. In FlexPepDock, what does the interface score (I_sc) correspond to? The interface between the receptor and peptide? Or is it something else?

02. Can the interface score be used to evaluate the strength of binding between the receptor and peptide? If not, how can I evaluate the said parameter?

Thank you very much! Cheers!

Post Situation: 

Docking tree issues

Category: 
Design

Hi all,

I am trying to design the interface of a peptide docked on a protein. For that, I have written a design XML considering only peptide residues to be designed. I use a docking tree mover that should define 1 jump in the sequence, but when I run the script I always get the same error:

File: src/core/pose/util.cc:1341
[ ERROR ] UtilityExitException
ERROR: Cannot compute center of mass of zero residues!

Post Situation: 

Why I_sc of Rosetta 2016.02 and 2018.21 are so different?

Category: 
Docking

Hello,

I was using Rosetta 2016.02 "local  refinement" to calculate the interface scores of known protein complexes (in a bound form).

Now, I tried docking the same protein complexes, with exactly the same flags with Rosetta 2018.21. I realized that the content of the score file has changed and it gives totally different I_sc and total_score.  Almost any protein complex that I tried gives favorable results now (i.e. I_sc < -5).  Why is this the case? 

I couldn't find what has changed since 2016.02 version. 

Post Situation: 

Undocumented changes in BackrubDD

Category: 
Design

Greetings Rosetta developers,

I am trying to use BackrunDD via rosetta_scripts (Rosetta ver 3.9). But I could not help but notice the difference between the available attributes for BackrubDD  when I run ' rosetta_scripts -info BackrubDD' and those documented in the following link:

https://www.rosettacommons.org/docs/latest/scripting_documentation/RosettaScripts/Movers/movers_pages/BackrubDDMover.

Post Situation: 

Pages