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

fixed modifcation parsing #389

Open
wants to merge 8 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

csbrasnett
Copy link
Collaborator

  • -mods flag now only read once for all modifications
  • patch all molecule termini as proteins, so any modification in addition to these ones are also applied.
  • add more modifications from vermouth to martini3 forcefield
  • change logging level and fix tests as per change in record level #385

- -mods flag now only read once for all modifications
- patch all molecule termini as proteins, so any modification in addition to these ones are also applied.
- add more modifications from vermouth to martini3 forcefield
- change logging level and fix tests as per marrink-lab#385
- -mods flag now only read once for all modifications
- patch all molecule termini as proteins, so any modification in addition to these ones are also applied.
- add more modifications from vermouth to martini3 forcefield
- change logging level and fix tests as per marrink-lab#385
# Conflicts:
#	polyply/src/apply_modifications.py
Copy link
Member

@fgrunewald fgrunewald left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good but that one itp test case I would suggest to include; also could we have one test case where more than just one modification is added like terminal plus histidine?

Comment on lines +76 to +80
;[ edges ]
;BB SC1
;SC1 SC2
;SC1 SC3
;SC2 SC3
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

are these commented out on purpose?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yes. For some reason modifications.ff can't be read if they're included, and excluding them doesn't seem to affect them being applied correctly 🤷‍♂️

Comment on lines 80 to 79
LOGGER.warning("meta_molecule has come from itp. Will not attempt to modify.")
LOGGER.info("meta_molecule has come from itp. Will not attempt to modify.")
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

having a test for this one would be ideal

@csbrasnett
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Re: the ignoring if coming from an itp test, two quick questions:

  1. I can't tell why it's not picked up from https://github.com/marrink-lab/polyply_1.0/pull/389/files#diff-da096f96695964aa898c2ba48751a6ffa6465bd64f22753261d8536db11d5d24R98-R109 anyway?

  2. I'm not sure nodes are ever given an attribute from 'from_itp' when they're read in via that meta_molecule subclass?

- input -seq HIS:5
- with two modifications, HIS1:HIS-HD HIS1:NH2-ter, so the first residue is modified twice, both in its terminal type, and in its histidine variant.
- input -seq HIS:5
- with two modifications, HIS1:HIS-HD HIS1:NH2-ter, so the first residue is modified twice, both in its terminal type, and in its histidine variant.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants