You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
This is an upstream issue, but probably should be documented whilst the MDA parser has this current behaviour.
Expected
Passing a PDB to propka or propkatraj should give the same predicted pkas
Actual outcome
When passing 4LYI (everyone's favourite BRD4 model), the results will differ significantly for GLU 151, 154, and 163.
The cause for this is that the MDA PDBWriter will output everything with ATOM records whilst the native PDB has HETATM entries for the small molecules/ions/solvent. This causes the difference in results seen here (manualy hand-editing the output of a MDA PDBWriter file for 4LYI makes things work again).
I'm not versed enough in the internal workings for propka 3.1+ to know why HETATM and ATOMS are handled differently, maybe @orbeckst has more insights here?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
This is an upstream issue, but probably should be documented whilst the MDA parser has this current behaviour.
Expected
Passing a PDB to propka or propkatraj should give the same predicted pkas
Actual outcome
When passing 4LYI (everyone's favourite BRD4 model), the results will differ significantly for GLU 151, 154, and 163.
The cause for this is that the MDA PDBWriter will output everything with ATOM records whilst the native PDB has HETATM entries for the small molecules/ions/solvent. This causes the difference in results seen here (manualy hand-editing the output of a MDA PDBWriter file for 4LYI makes things work again).
I'm not versed enough in the internal workings for propka 3.1+ to know why HETATM and ATOMS are handled differently, maybe @orbeckst has more insights here?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: