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
ma_alignment.sequence is described as "The target / template sequence in the multiple sequence alignment". But what should this look like if the target or template contains non-standard residues such as UNK? For example we have a model built using 4buj chain E as the template which contains a number of UNK residues. Should ma_alignment.sequence here contain X (to match entity_poly.pdbx_seq_one_letter_code_can in 4buj.cif) or (UNK) (as in entity_poly.pdbx_seq_one_letter_code) ? The latter seems more flexible but would require reader software to be a little more intelligent (since it can't assume one character = one alignment position). But since the sequence is already uniquely defined elsewhere it seems like it doesn't matter either way, just as long as it is defined.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I suggest using X instead of (UNK) so that the sequence is a string of one-letter codes as defined in the dictionary.
Works for me - so, the canonical sequence. Can this be stated in the docs then? That should reduce the possibility of people producing files with (UNK) and friends instead.
ma_alignment.sequence
is described as "The target / template sequence in the multiple sequence alignment". But what should this look like if the target or template contains non-standard residues such as UNK? For example we have a model built using 4buj chain E as the template which contains a number of UNK residues. Shouldma_alignment.sequence
here containX
(to matchentity_poly.pdbx_seq_one_letter_code_can
in4buj.cif
) or(UNK)
(as inentity_poly.pdbx_seq_one_letter_code
) ? The latter seems more flexible but would require reader software to be a little more intelligent (since it can't assume one character = one alignment position). But since the sequence is already uniquely defined elsewhere it seems like it doesn't matter either way, just as long as it is defined.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: