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

Epimerisation domains #51

Open
nignatiadis opened this issue Feb 26, 2014 · 4 comments
Open

Epimerisation domains #51

nignatiadis opened this issue Feb 26, 2014 · 4 comments

Comments

@nignatiadis
Copy link
Collaborator

NRP: L-2,4-diaminobutyric acid + L-alanine
Output: A-T-C_L-A-T-E-TE with the second adenylation domain coming from Tolypoclatium inflatum, simA with specificity for D-alanine.

Two issues here: 1) Are we in general able to incorporate Epimerisation domains just before TE domains (any biological evidence)? In all other cases we get the appropriate specificity after an E domain by action of C domains..

  1. We also have A-domains in the database with speficity for L-alanine (B.subtilis FenE7A), thus there's no reason to do it via D-alanine+Epimerisation. To avoid this, I suggest to give a high penalty to "T-E" type combinations, or even do this manually in the designer code?..
@ilia-kats
Copy link
Owner

Apparently penicillin synthetases have an eprimerization domain
preceding a TE domain, see
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300908411002926 . So
I guess the question is whether we want to penalize evolutionary
distance or domains involved more, and if penalizing domains involved,
up to which evolutionary distance.

@Hetitus
Copy link
Collaborator

Hetitus commented Feb 27, 2014

I don't know if I got it correctly but I would say that if there is know other domain available with the right specificity then just include the penalized domain. Maybe we can also display the penalty of a designed contract visually somewhere in the gui - then the user would know about the quality of the construct...

@nignatiadis
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@Hetitus ^ problem was that there exists domain with right specificity (A domain for L-alanine) but dijkstra returns 2 domains (A domain for D-alanine + Epimerisation) instead of correct one.

@ilia-kats Ok the paper seems interesting (will read later) and we should probably open a new issue for thioesterase domains to discuss this further.. In regards to A/E, I think I don't like this possibility at all (by going A+E instead of only A you add 1 kb to the construct without any reason..), so maybe this should already be done before dijkstra, when the graph is constructed? As in:

Search for A domains. If they exist, add them to the graph. Only if they do not exist search for A domains for the enantiomer and add to graph.

What do you think?

@ilia-kats
Copy link
Owner

Question is whether a construct containing only A, but with a high
evolutionary distance to the rest of the construct, is more likely to
work than a construct containig A+E where the whole construct is
assembled from closely related sources.

@ilia-kats ilia-kats added enhancement and removed bug labels Mar 2, 2014
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants