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

Insertions always removed #173

Closed
OliverT1 opened this issue May 19, 2022 · 4 comments · Fixed by #174
Closed

Insertions always removed #173

OliverT1 opened this issue May 19, 2022 · 4 comments · Fixed by #174

Comments

@OliverT1
Copy link
Contributor

Even when changing config.insertions to True, insertions are always removed and not included as nodes in the generated graph.

This is due to the config.insertions paramater not being passed to process_dataframe() in graphs.py, meaning the default value of False is always used.

@a-r-j
Copy link
Owner

a-r-j commented May 19, 2022

Thanks for the report and quick PR.

Out of interest, what's your usecase here? I've considered adding support for an optional entrypoint to select insertions of interest though they've never been something I've wanted in practice.

a-r-j pushed a commit that referenced this issue May 19, 2022
* fixed dssp for local pdbs

* fix for insertions always False
@OliverT1
Copy link
Contributor Author

I'm working on antibodies. A common numbering scheme is often used (e.g. IMGT ) as a form of sequence alignment. Due to the variability in CDR3 length there are often many insertions, put in position 111, as well as deletions. This also causes issues in peptide bond edge creation as well because the deletions mean there are non-consecutive residue numbers which are then not connected by the peptide bond function.

I've done a hacky way to get around this, as well as some other antibody specific functions such as only creating nodes for surface exposed residues in the CDR vicinity. Happy to add these in if there's any interest in it.

@a-r-j
Copy link
Owner

a-r-j commented May 19, 2022

Ah, I see; that makes sense.

That'd be great! Happy to discuss. I've just added a tutorial notebook appling e(n)GNNs to antibody developability prediction here that you might be interested in.

@OliverT1
Copy link
Contributor Author

Great, I'll get in touch when I've wrapped up this project then. Thanks for sharing, very similar to what I'm doing! I'm also using the Satorras model.

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 a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants