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

Default PDB chain ID back to blank. Add option to write anisotropic displacement factors to PDB file. #767

Merged
merged 30 commits into from
Oct 16, 2019

Conversation

drroe
Copy link
Contributor

@drroe drroe commented Oct 16, 2019

The change in default PDB chain ID (#747) resulted in several things in AmberTools breaking, most notably mmpbsa.py. This PR restores the original behavior of writing no PDB chain ID if none present in the input topology. However, if pdbres or pdbv3 are specified a default chain ID of Z will be written if none present in topology. This seems like a good middle ground.

This PR also adds a new option to PDB output, adpdata:

adpdata <set>  : Use data in <set> for anisotropic B-factors.

This can be used to write an actual PDB with the anisotropic B factors (as well as isotropic B factors via the already implemented bfacdata command), e.g.

trajin ../DPDP.nc
rms first mass
atomicfluct Heavy calcadp :2-21&!@/H
average crdset MyAvg
run
crdout MyAvg heavy.adp.pdb adpdata Heavy[ADP] bfacdata Heavy
ATOM      1 HH31 ACE     1       6.786   3.433  -4.315  1.00  0.00           H  
ATOM      2  CH3 ACE     1       6.648   3.119  -4.327  1.00  0.00           C  
ATOM      3 HH32 ACE     1       6.731   3.425  -4.668  1.00  0.00           H  
ATOM      4 HH33 ACE     1       6.468   3.344  -4.332  1.00  0.00           H  
ATOM      5  C   ACE     1       6.617   1.942  -3.870  1.00  0.00           C  
ATOM      6  O   ACE     1       6.807   1.309  -4.257  1.00  0.00           O  
ATOM      7  N   VAL     2       6.371   1.648  -3.066  1.00 20.77           N  
ANISOU    7  N   VAL     2     5328   1042   1520    244   -684    -44       N  
ATOM      8  H   VAL     2       6.208   2.226  -2.809  1.00  0.00           H  
ATOM      9  CA  VAL     2       6.316   0.541  -2.523  1.00 15.75           C  

Documentation has been updated (including an example of doing the above), and some tests have been added.

Also, the printing of formal charges in PDB files is theoretically possible now, but not yet done. The charge of 0 has been removed from ADP output.

Daniel R. Roe and others added 28 commits October 15, 2019 12:20
…ests compliance with pdb residue naming via pdbres; always writing a default of Z can break things like mmpbsa.py
… of Z gets written. Also triggers HETATM and CONECT print, so update the test.
…ion since multiple non-contiguous segments, and is a useful example.
… an example of calculating an averaged pdb with anisotropic and isotropic b factors to the atomicfluct command.
@drroe drroe self-assigned this Oct 16, 2019
…ow getting a gfortran not found error on OSX suddenly...)
@drroe
Copy link
Contributor Author

drroe commented Oct 16, 2019

So the issue seems to be that homebrew is failing:

/System/Library/Frameworks/Ruby.framework/Versions/2.3/usr/lib/ruby/2.3.0/rubygems/core_ext/kernel_require.rb:55:in `require': cannot load such file -- active_support/core_ext/object/blank (LoadError)
	from /System/Library/Frameworks/Ruby.framework/Versions/2.3/usr/lib/ruby/2.3.0/rubygems/core_ext/kernel_require.rb:55:in `require'
	from /usr/local/Homebrew/Library/Homebrew/global.rb:12:in `<top (required)>'
	from /usr/local/Homebrew/Library/Homebrew/brew.rb:23:in `require_relative'
	from /usr/local/Homebrew/Library/Homebrew/brew.rb:23:in `<main>'

I'm going to try adding a brew update to see if that fixes things.

@drroe
Copy link
Contributor Author

drroe commented Oct 16, 2019

brew update seems to have worked. Since the previous appveyor builds passed, I'm going to merge.

@drroe drroe merged commit 8f53021 into master Oct 16, 2019
@drroe drroe deleted the pdbchainid branch October 16, 2019 18:11
@hainm
Copy link
Contributor

hainm commented Oct 16, 2019

appveyor

again? :P

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants