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
Hi Peter, I'm starting to think that this might be a general fpocket 4.0 issue, or an issue with how we installed fpocket. I'm attaching the results of running fpocket -f 8g9b.pdb with absolutely no changes to 8g9b.pdb. There are still a ton of small pockets in this case. 8g9b_no_changes.zip
On 8g9b the original structure at least I get the ATP binding site in full for instance. Might be due to the clustering, and a bit tricky to unfiddle, but I'll give it a try
Hi Peter, I ran 8g9b with the most recent fpocket version (master branch), and I got very different results from before. The previous version I was using was the fpocket branch tagged as version 4.0. Its not too much of an issue on my end to update our version and rerun fpocket over everything, but I do want to make sure I'm actually matching your results that show the ATP binding site first. Thanks! 8g9b.zip
Hi @pschmidtke, side question: fpocket uses bfactors, right? In that case, how should we handle fpocket on Alphafold structures, since the bfactor is the plddt score in that case?
normally bigger pockets are identified in 8g9b but if one drops all HETATMS prior to default predictions only tiny ones are found everywhere.
8g9bclean.pdb.zip
Investigated:
To investigate:
rpdb.r reading with hetatms vs non hetatms
clustering differences & voronoi vertices early in the process
Reproducible
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: