Monthly Archives: March 2022

How to Install Open Source PyMOL on Windows 10

It is possible to get an installer for the crystallographer’s favourite molecular visualization tool for Windows machines, that is if you are willing to pay a fee. Fortunately, Christoph Gohlke has made available free, pre-compiled Windows versions of the latest PyMOL software, along with all of it’s requirements, it’s just not particularly straightforward to install. The PyMOLWiki offers a three-step guide on how to do this and I will break it down to make it somewhat clearer.

1. Install the latest version of Python 3 for Windows

Download the Windows Installer (x-bit) for Python 3 from their website, x being your Windows architecture – 32 or 64.

Then, follow the instructions on how to install it. You can check if it has installed by running the following in PowerShell:

Continue reading →

Making pwd redundant

I’m going to keep this one brief, because I am mid-confirmation-and-paper-writing madness. I have seen too many people – both beginners and seasoned veterans – wandering around their Linux filesystem blindfolded:

Isn’t it hideous?

Whenever you want to see where you are, you have to execute pwd (present working directory), which will print your absolute location to stdout. If you have many terminals open at the same time, it is easy to lose track of where you are, and every other command becomes pwd; surely, I hear you cry, there has to be a better way!

Well, fear not! With a little tinkering with ~/.bashrc, we can display the working directory as part of the special PS1 environment variable, responsible for how your username and computer are displayed above. Putting the following at the top of ~/.bashrc

me=`id | awk -F\( '{print $2}' | awk -F\) '{print $1}'`
export PS1="`uname -n |  /bin/sed 's/\..*//'`{$me}:\$PWD$ "

… saving, and starting a new termanal window results in:

Much better!

I haven’t used pwd in 3 years.

3 Key Questions to Think About When Designing Proteins Computationally

We have reached the era of design, not just ‘hunting’. Particularly exciting to me is the de novo design of proteins, which have a wide and ever increasing range of applications from therapeutics to consumer products, biomanufacturing to biomaterials. Protein design has been a) enabled by decades of research that contributed to our understanding of protein sequence, structure & function and b) accelerated by computational advances – capturing the information we have learned from proteins and representing it for computers and machine learning algorithms.

In this blog post, I will discuss three key methodological considerations for computational protein design:

  1. Sequence- vs structure-based design
  2. ML- vs physics-based design
  3. Target-agnostic vs target-aware design
Continue reading →

How to estimate the inestimable

Back-of-the-envelope calculations are one of our chief tools as scientists. When you spend most of your time wondering if your latest measurement is correct, having a tool to check if the numbers make sense is simply priceless. If you are lucky, a good estimate might just avoid a costly or laborious measurement — this is very common in disciplines like chemical engineering, which a friend described as “the art of estimating numbers and plugging them into some variation of Bernoulli’s continuity equation”. Unsurprisingly, these Fermi problems are now common interview questions at major consultancy and tech companies, and have even started to go viral.

Last week, I thought I would ask my biochemistry students to solve a back-of-the-envelope problem as part of their tutorial work. Disguised as an enzyme catalysis problem, I asked them to estimate the energy of a single hydrogen bond. Needless to say, they were puzzled. Some of them asked if I had forgotten to include some information in the problem sheet. For some reason, Fermi problems seem to be less common in chemistry and biology that they are in physics of engineering. Of course, estimating the energy of a hydrogen bond is in many ways much harder than guessing the number of ping pong balls that fit a Boeing 747. Nobody has seen a hydrogen bond in the flesh. And our minds struggle to grasp the vast numbers present at the molecular level. Nevertheless, guesstimates are incredibly useful

Continue reading →

Post-processing for molecular docking: Assigning the correct bond order using RDKit.

AutoDock4 and AutoDock Vina are the most commonly used open-source software for protein-ligand docking. However, they both rely on a derivative of the “PDB” (Protein Data Base) file format: the “PDBQT” file (Protein Data Bank, Partial Charge (Q), & Atom Type (T)). In addition to the information contained in normal PDB files, PDBQT files have an additional column that lists the partial charge (Q) and the assigned AutoDock atom type (T) for each atom in the molecule. AutoDock atom types offer a more granular differentiation between atoms such as listing aliphatic carbons and aromatic carbons as separate AutoDock atom types.

The biggest drawback about the PDBQT format is that it does not encode for the bond order in molecules explicitly. Instead, the bond order is inferred based on the atom type, distance and angle to nearby atoms in the molecule. For normal sp3 carbons and molecules with mostly single bonds this system works fine, however, for more complex structures containing for example aromatic rings, conjugated systems and hypervalent atoms such as sulphur, the bond order is often not displayed correctly. This leads to issues downstream in the screening pipeline when molecules suddenly change their bond order or have to be discarded after docking because of impossible bond orders.

The solution to this problem is included in RDKit: The AssignBondOrdersFromTemplate function. All you need to do is load the original molecule used for docking as a template molecule and the docked pose PDBQT file into RDKIT as a PDB, without the bond order information. Then assign the original bond order from your template molecule. The following code snippet covers the necessary functions and should help you build a more accurate and reproducible protein-ligand docking pipeline:

#import RDKit AllChem
from rdkit import Chem
from rdkit.Chem import AllChem


#load original molecule from smiles
SMILES_STRING = "CCCCCCCCC" #the smiles string of your ligand
template = Chem.MolFromSmiles(SMILES_STRING)

#load the docked pose as a PDB file
loc_of_docked_pose = "docked_pose_mol.pdb" #file location of the docked pose converted to PDB file
docked_pose = AllChem.MolFromPDBFile(loc_of_docked_pose)

#Assign the bond order to force correct valence
newMol = AllChem.AssignBondOrdersFromTemplate(template, docked_pose)

#Add Hydrogens if desired. "addCoords = True" makes sure the hydrogens are added in 3D. This does not take pH/pKa into account. 
newMol_H = Chem.AddHs(newMol, addCoords=True)

#save your new correct molecule as a sdf file that encodes for bond orders correctly
output_loc = "docked_pose_assigned_bond_order.sdf" #output file name
Chem.MolToMolFile(newMol_H, output_loc)

Non-linear Dependence? Mutual Information to the Rescue!

We are all familiar with the idea of a correlation. In the broadest sense of the word, a correlation can refer to any kind of dependence between two variables. There are three widely used tests for correlation:

  • Spearman’s r: Used to measure a linear relationship between two variables. Requires linear dependence and each marginal distribution to be normal.
  • Pearson’s ρ: Used to measure rank correlations. Requires the dependence structure to be described by a monotonic relationship
  • Kendall’s 𝛕: Used to measure ordinal association between variables.

While these three measures give us plenty of options to work with, they do not work in all cases. Take for example the following variables, Y1 and Y2. These might be two variables that vary in a concerted manner.

Perhaps we suspect that a state change in Y1 leads to a state change in Y2 or vice versa and we want to measure the association between these variables. Using the three measures of correlation, we get the following results:

Continue reading →

Fragment Based Drug Discovery with Crystallographic Fragment Screening at XChem and Beyond

Disclaimer: I’m a current PhD student working on PanDDA 2 for Frank von Delft and Charlotte Deane, and sponsored by Global Phasing, and some of this is my opinion – if it isn’t obvious in one of the references I probably said it so take it with a pinch of salt

Fragment Based Drug Discovery

Principle

Fragment based drugs discovery (FBDD) is a technique for finding lead compounds for medicinal chemistry. In FBDD a protein target of interest is identified for inhibition and a small library, typically of a few hundred compounds, is screened against it. Though these typically bind weakly, they can be used as a starting point for chemical elaboration towards something more lead-like. This approach is primarily contrasted with high throughput screening (HTS), in which an enormous number of larger, more complex molecules are screened in order to find ones which bind. The key idea is recognizing that the molecules in these HTS libraries can typically be broken down into a much smaller number of common substructures, fragments, so screening these ought to be more informative: between them they describe more of the “chemical space” which interacts with the protein. Since it first appeared about 25 years ago, FBDD has delivered four drugs for clinical use and over 40 molecules to clinical trials.

Continue reading →