Closed vgapsys closed 2 weeks ago
Thank you @vgapsys for your PR! This generally looks great, I just noticed that only the C-termini are capped, while the N-termini are uncapped and charged. Was it better to leave those uncapped? Or would it be possible to add a cap there as well to be consistent within the benchmark set?
This is based on the instructions: https://industrybenchmarks2024.readthedocs.io/en/latest/public/input_preparation.html#capping-proteins
@vgapsys you're right! I just added a suggestion for a brief bullet point in the preparation instruction as a future reference, please let me know if you agree and we can merge this PR! Thank you!
I am fine with the change, but I do not know whether the current termini are the actual beginning of the construct (actually, which construct are we thinking of: x-ray structure or the one in the affinity assay?). I left the N-terms uncapped to keep the setup consistent with the initial structures provided by Schrodinger
Thanks @vgapsys , I changed the suggestion!
Input submission checklist
input_structures/prepared_structures/<set_name>/<system_name>
For each submitted directory:
PREPARATION_DETAILS.md
fileprotein.pdb
cofactors.sdf
ligands.sdf
and removed any duplicate binding modes or protonation states, keeping the more favorable stateSummary of changes
Capped C-term in t4l and mcl1 Consistently renumbered protein atoms
Licensing agreement