They are on the way. The student who developed them successfully
defended her thesis (Yay!) just recently. For that reason and several
others, you've caught us when we are a bit over-stressed. The
information should be available very soon. We will announce it here
and on the AMBER reflector.
On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 10:17 AM, anu chandra <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hello Lachele,
>
> Thanks for prompt reply. I do understand the limitation of current naming
> convention in Glycam. It will be grateful, as you mention, if you can
> provide the prep file in 'Special release' section for 4DGlcpNSa1, which I
> can successively use for the heparin
> (LIdopA[2S]a1-4DGlcpNS[6S]a1-4LIdopA[2S]a1-4DGlcpNS[6S]a1-OH) I build on
> GAG-Builder.
>
>
> Many thanks
> Anu
>
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 6:10 AM, Lachele Foley <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> It is correct for there to be no residue RYA in GLYCAM_06j-1.prep. To
>> use the name RYA makes logical sense, so I understand why it was
>> chosen, but it technically isn't the correct name to use.
>>
>> The current GLYCAM residue naming convention has numerous limitations,
>> and you have just encountered one. A new naming convention was
>> proposed in the article at the link just below. We want to switch to
>> this, or some other, more flexible naming convention, but doing so
>> will not be a trivial task and must be done with great care and
>> attention to detail.
>> http://glycob.oxfordjournals.org/content/18/6/426.full.pdf+html
>> (proposed new naming)
>>
>> So, Anu, I understand that your choice of the name RYA signifies the
>> fact that an SO3 is attached at positions 2 and 6, with another
>> monosaccharide at position 4. However, our naming doesn't recognize
>> an 'N' as an attachment position in that sense. The naming, at least
>> thus far, has only considered open valences at hydroxyl oxygens. So
>> there is no definition at all for attachments at "position 2" of a
>> GlcNAc or similar residue - note that there is also no residue called
>> '2YA' in the prep file.
>>
>> BTW, the RYA in Table 4 on our naming page (glycam.org/naming) is a
>> typo that has been present, but not noticed, since around the release
>> of GLYCAM-04.
>>
>> To other Woods/GLYCAM folks... We *could* adopt this naming, allowing
>> N to be an open valence. So, 2YA would be -2DGlcpNa1- with an open
>> valence at the N, which is at the 2 position. That might simplify
>> things in the meantime. We might not be able to generate all the
>> NAc-relevant residues in the database, but there would be names for
>> many of them. Also, this still doesn't give us a plain GlcpN, but we
>> don't have that anyway. It also might allow things to be attached
>> there that should not be. We could check to see if a lack of ff
>> parameters would keep this from being a problem in a simulation.
>>
>> Back to everyone: In the background, the builder currently calls the
>> files xYS for alpha and xYs for beta (for a lack of an official naming
>> convention). So, 4YS is -4DGlcpNSa1- and so forth. I can post those
>> prep files for now in the "Special Releases" section. I think that is
>> all Anu needs. We can always update the names and such later as
>> desired.
>>
>>
>> --
>> :-) Lachele
>> Lachele Foley
>> CCRC/UGA
>> Athens, GA USA
>
>
--
:-) Lachele
Lachele Foley
CCRC/UGA
Athens, GA USA
|