-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 17
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
DSSP needs upgrade to 2.0 #3
Comments
There are actually a number of problems with DSSP. If we deviate from the well known Kabsch & Sander DSSP, I believe we can actually do a number of things. There is a BioJava thread biojava/biojava#454 that discusses improvements to the secondary structure implementation. |
From http://swift.cmbi.ru.nl/gv/dssp/index.html
So, DSSP 2.0 is a very small incremental change as as I can see. What is the rationale to change the order of assignment, that is "π-helices before α-helices"? The MMTF specification allows any per-residue secondary structure data, not just DSSP. There will be a page that exactly describes what the MMTF files we provide contain. |
I have switched Jmol to DSSP 2.0. The rationale is that helices with "kinks" or "bulges" were being treated as one long helix. In many case, particularly in G-protein-coupled receptors, this results in situations where, especially with rocket rendering, a rendering of the helix does not follow the helix faithfully. DSSP 2.0 better represents that broken helix as three -- alpha-pi-alpha. The original DSSP almost never marks a pi-helix because it is generally just such a bulge. I spotted it with 1F88, but there are many other cases mentioned in that article. What I've done in Jmol is to make the default to ignore the mmtf assignment and just do the DSSP 2.0 assignment itself. But if one really wants the older assignment, then what you can do is to add FILTER "DSSP1" to the load line. Then two things will happen: (1) The DSSP assignment in the mmtf file will be read, and (2) Jmol will not fill in missing models (as in 1CDR) with its own DSSP 2.0 calculation. I suggest that if you are going to use DSSP at all, you should implement the upgrade to DSSP 2.0, as that is what the authors certainly want "DSSP" to mean now. |
I see, that makes perfect sense. Thanks! |
I wrote a paper about this a long time ago. DSSP uses hydrogen bonds to assign helices (1-->4 for α), (1-->5 π). The problem is that often both hydrogen bonds are present bifurcated and the order of assignment will impact the assignment severely. The change I suggested back then was to use hydrogen bond energy preference. The original DSSP was biased against π by assigning α first, the DSSP 2.0 is perhaps now biased against α. Why not use the hydrogen bond energy preference as I suggested? |
The DSSP analysis that RCSB is using (from BioJava) is using an outdated DSSP algorithm. see Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2014, 15, 7841-7864; doi:10.3390/ijms15057841 for a discussion of DSSP 2.0. Jmol is moving to this default, so "DSSP" in Jmol will now point to this.
Suggestion is that RCSB do the same and incorporate DSSP 2.0, not DSSP 1.0, into mmtf.
Bob
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: