Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

inference without MSA #25

Open
sehooni opened this issue Sep 4, 2024 · 7 comments
Open

inference without MSA #25

sehooni opened this issue Sep 4, 2024 · 7 comments

Comments

@sehooni
Copy link

sehooni commented Sep 4, 2024

Hello, thank you for great research.

In the AlphaLink paper, i think that you test without MSA in Fig.2 (e,f).

than, how can we make the dataset without MSA.

In my work, I have some test set with MSA. But I want to revise them without MSA feature.
In inference time, I tried with neff 0, but it didn't work.

# subsample MSAs to specified Neff
msa = feature_dict['msa']

if args.neff:
    logger.info(
        f"Subsampling MSA to Neff={args.neff}..."
    )
    indices = subsample_msa_sequentially(msa, neff=args.neff)
    feature_dict['msa'] = msa[indices]
    feature_dict['deletion_matrix_int'] = feature_dict['deletion_matrix_int'][indices]

Can I get some advise?

thank you for reading.

@sehooni sehooni changed the title about no MSA about without MSA Sep 4, 2024
@sehooni sehooni changed the title about without MSA inference without MSA Sep 4, 2024
@lhatsk
Copy link
Owner

lhatsk commented Sep 4, 2024

In this case, you take only the first entry, since that is the target sequence itself.

msa = feature_dict['msa']

if args.neff:
    logger.info(
        f"Subsampling MSA to Neff={args.neff}..."
    )
    #indices = subsample_msa_sequentially(msa, neff=args.neff)
    feature_dict['msa'] = msa[:1]
    feature_dict['deletion_matrix_int'] = feature_dict['deletion_matrix_int'][:1]

@sehooni
Copy link
Author

sehooni commented Sep 4, 2024

Oh, thank you for reply.

By the way, then it means that neff=1 is same with no MSA?

And one more thing to ask.
In features, there are the key 'num_alignments', which means the number of msa.
does it need to change for neff?

@lhatsk
Copy link
Owner

lhatsk commented Sep 4, 2024

By the way, then it means that neff=1 is same with no MSA?

Yes, it will amount to the same thing in the end.

And one more thing to ask. In features, there are the key 'num_alignments', which means the number of msa. does it need to change for neff?

You don't need to change anything else.

@sehooni
Copy link
Author

sehooni commented Sep 22, 2024

Thank you for responding issue.
By the way, I have another question!

in README, “Where restraints.csv is a comma-separated file containing residueFrom,residueTo,meanDistance,standard deviation, distribution type (normal/log-normal)”, what is the criterion of distance in meanDistance?

Because in my work, I have to make the distogram to train another model. Furthermore, I understood that the distogram means that the distance distribution between the CB atoms.

So, does it mean the CB atom distance between the both of crosslinking residues or CA atom distance?

thanks a lot!

@lhatsk
Copy link
Owner

lhatsk commented Sep 23, 2024

We trained with CA-CA distances for the distogram. meanDistance would most likely be your cutoff, e.g., 10A for photoAA or 25A for SDA.

@sehooni
Copy link
Author

sehooni commented Sep 24, 2024

Oh, I see. :)

then, why did you choose the CA-CA distance instead of the CB-CB distance? Is there any reason why? Because in AlphaFold2, they computed the distogram, which are computed from the ground-truth beta carbon positions for all amino acids except glycine where use alpha carbon instead.

@sehooni sehooni closed this as completed Sep 24, 2024
@sehooni sehooni reopened this Sep 24, 2024
@lhatsk
Copy link
Owner

lhatsk commented Sep 24, 2024

Crosslinks are usually specified for CA-CA. The network will likely have no problem mapping it to CB-CB.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants