Subject: Re: Advice on heteroatoms, metals and water
From: Jim Procter <>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 15:00:45 +0200
Organization: Zentrum Bioinformatik Hamburg
Reply-to:
Karsten wrote :
> Thank you for this information. In fact, I was hoping that Modeller had
> some forcefields hidden somewhere in the depth of its code to do loop
> modelling around Ca2+ binding sites. The real problem is not to place the
no such luck - it uses a reduced version of amber without the bells and
whistles (FFT/QMM electrostatics, etc).
> Ca2+, but to have all the oxygens of the different side chains point its
> way. My templates are not close enough to get this right, and I have even
> one case where the Ca-binding site is only present in the target.
Well. Without good homologs for the metal binding site, which means that the
local environment of the loop is roughly similar too, you will have a hard
time applying any kind of homology modelling procedure reliably. Particularly
so, if you want to use this for molecular replacement. This is because
MODELLER uses a knowledge-based algorithm to generate the constraints, and is
not necesarily going to be able to predict something it hasn't seen before
(ie in the loop-database used in the loop-modelling procedure).
The only 'reliable' approach is to find an ab-initio geometry for the loop,
which you might get using a good dynamics package. Amber is perhaps
appropriate (IIRC) if you use the proper electrostatics, but there are other
packages out there. Either way, you will need a cautious combination of
simulation and homology modelling in order to get anywhere. The complex issue
of setting restraints on the overall fold of the molecule is unavoidable, I'm
afraid.
However, if you just want to make a nice picture using the text-book
coordination geometry, you could try adding some appropriate distance and
dihedral restraints to your model - have a look here :
http://salilab.org/modeller/manual/node113.html
have fun ;-)
j.