Today’s blog post is about using PLIP to extract information about interactions between a protein and ligand in a bound complex, using data from PDBbind. The blog post will cover how to combine the protein pdb file and the ligand mol2 file into a pdb file, and how to use PLIP in a high-throughput manner with python.
In order for PLIP to consider the ligand as one molecule interacting with the protein, we need to modify the mol2 file of the ligand. The 8th column of the atom portion of a mol2 file (the portion starts with @<TRIPOS>ATOM) includes the ID of the ligand that the atom belongs to. Most often all the atoms have the same ligand ID, but for peptides for instance, the atoms have the ID of the residue they’re part of. The following code snippet will make the required changes:
ligand_file = 'data/5oxm/5oxm_ligand.mol2'
with open(ligand_file, 'r') as f:
ligand_lines = f.readlines()
mod = False
for i in range(len(ligand_lines)):
line = ligand_lines[i]
if line == '@<TRIPOS>BOND\n':
mod = False
if mod:
ligand_lines[i] = line[:59] + 'ISK ' + line[67:]
if line == '@<TRIPOS>ATOM\n':
mod = True
with open('data/5oxm/5oxm_ligand_mod.mol2', 'w') as g:
for j in ligand_lines:
g.write(j)
Environment modules is a great tool for high-performance computing as it is a modular system to quickly and painlessly enable preset configurations of environment variables, for example a user may be provided with modulefile for an antiquated version of a tool and a bleeding-edge alpha version of that same tool and they can easily load whichever they wish. In many clusters the modules are created with a tool called EasyBuild, which delivered an out-of-the-box installation. This works for things like a single binary, but for conda this severely falls short as there are many many configuration changes needed.
Recently I’ve been thinking a lot about how to decompose a compound into smaller fragments specifically for a retrosynthetic purpose. My question is: given a compound, can I return building blocks that are likely to synthesize together to produce this compound simply by breaking likely bonds formed in a reaction? A method that is nearly 15 years old named, breaking of retrosynthetically interesting chemical substructures (BRICS), is one approach to do this. Here I’ll explore how BRICS can reflect synthetic accessibility.
Today’s post builds on my earlier blogpost on how to turn a SMILES string into an extended-connectivity fingerprint using RDKit and describes an interesting and easily implementable modification of the extended-connectivity fingerprint (ECFP) featurisation. This modification is based on representing the atoms in the input compound at a different (and potentially more useful) level of abstraction.
We remember that each binary component of an ECFP indicates the presence or absence of a particular circular subgraph in the input compound. Circular subgraphs that are structurally isomorphic are further distinguished according to their inherited atom- and bond features, i.e. two structurally isomorphic circular subgraphs with distinct atom- or bond features correspond to different components of the ECFP. For chemical bonds, this distinction is made on the basis of simple bond types (single, double, triple, or aromatic). To distinguish atoms, standard ECFPs use seven features based on the Daylight atomic invariants [1]; but there is also another less commonly used and often overlooked version of the ECFP that uses pharmacophoric atom features instead [2]. Pharmacophoric atom features attempt to describe atomic properties that are critical for biological activity or binding to a target protein. These features try to capture the potential for important chemical interactions such as hydrogen bonding or ionic bonding. ECFPs that use pharmacophoric atom features instead of standard atom features are called functional-connectivity fingerprints (FCFPs). The exact sets of standard- vs. pharmacophoric atom features for ECFPs vs. FCFPs are listed in the table below.
In RDKit, ECFPs can be changed to FCFPs extremely easily by changing a single input argument. Below you can find a Python/RDKit implementation of a function that turns a SMILES string into an FCFP if use_features = True and into an ECFP if use_features = False.
# import packages
import numpy as np
from rdkit.Chem import AllChem
# define function that transforms a SMILES string into an FCFP if use_features = True and into an ECFP if use_features = False
def FCFP_from_smiles(smiles,
R = 2,
L = 2**10,
use_features = True,
use_chirality = False):
"""
Inputs:
- smiles ... SMILES string of input compound
- R ... maximum radius of circular substructures
- L ... fingerprint-length
- use_features ... if true then use pharmacophoric atom features, if false then use standard DAYLIGHT atom features
- use_chirality ... if true then append tetrahedral chirality flags to atom features
Outputs:
- np.array(feature_list) ... FCFP/ECFP with length L and maximum radius R
"""
molecule = AllChem.MolFromSmiles(smiles)
feature_list = AllChem.GetMorganFingerprintAsBitVect(molecule,
radius = R,
nBits = L,
useFeatures = use_features,
useChirality = use_chirality)
return np.array(feature_list)
The use of pharmacophoric atom features makes FCFPs more specific to molecular interactions that drive biological activity. In certain molecular machine-learning applications, replacing ECFPs with FCFPs can therefore lead to increased performance and decreased learning time, as important high-level atomic properties are presented to the learning algorithm from the start and do not need to be inferred statistically. However, the standard atom features used in ECFPs contain more detailed low-level information that could potentially still be relevant for the prediction task at hand and thus be utilised by the learning algorithm. It is often unclear from the outset whether FCFPs will provide a substantial advantage over ECFPs in a given application; however, given how easy it is to switch between the two, it is almost always worth trying out both options.
[1] Weininger, David, Arthur Weininger, and Joseph L. Weininger. “SMILES. 2. Algorithm for generation of unique SMILES notation.” Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences 29.2 (1989): 97-101.
[2] Rogers, David, and Mathew Hahn. “Extended-connectivity fingerprints.” Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling 50.5 (2010): 742-754.
Have you ever had an annoying dataset that looks something like this?
or even worse, just several of them
In this blog post, I will introduce basic techniques you can use and implement with Python to identify and clean outliers. The objective will be to get something more eye-pleasing (and mostly less troublesome for further data analysis) like this
ECFPs were originally described in a 2010 article of Rogers and Hahn [1] and still belong to the most popular and efficient methods to turn a molecule into an informative vectorial representation for downstream machine learning tasks. The ECFP-algorithm is dependent on two predefined hyperparameters: the fingerprint-length L and the maximum radius R. An ECFP of length L takes the form of an L-dimensional bitvector containing only 0s and 1s. Each component of an ECFP indicates the presence or absence of a particular circular substructure in the input compound. Each circular substructure has a center atom and a radius that determines its size. The hyperparameter R defines the maximum radius of any circular substructure whose presence or absence is indicated in the ECFP. Circular substructures for a central nitrogen atom in an example compound are depicted in the image below.
Sometimes it can be handy to work with multiple structures in PyMOL using Python.
Here’s a snippet of code you might find useful: we iterate over all the α-carbon atoms in a protein and append to a list tuples such as (‘GLY’, 1). The dictionary, ‘reslist’, returns a list of residue names and indices for each molecule, where the key is a string containing the name of the molecule.
from pymol import cmd
# Create a list of all the objects, called 'mpls':
mols = cmd.get_object_list('*')
# Create an empty dictionary that will return a list of residues
# given the name of the molecule object
reslist = {}
# Set the dictionaries to be empty lists
for m in mols: reslist[m] = []
# Use PyMOL's iterate command to go over every α-Carbon and append
# a tuple consisting of the each residue's residue name ('resn') and
# residue index ('resi '):
for m in mols: cmd.iterate('%s and n. ca'%m, 'reslist["%s"].append((resn,int(resi)))'%m)
This script assumes you only have protein molecules loaded, and ignores things like chain ID and insertion codes.
Once you have your list of residues, you can use it with the cmd.align command, e.g., to align a particular residue to a reference structure.
One of the recurrent problems I used to have when writing argument parsers is that after refactoring code, I also had to change the argument parser options which generally led to inconsistency between the arguments of the function and some of the options of the argument parser. The following example can illustrate the problem:
def main(a,b):
"""
This function adds together two numbers a and b
param a: first number
param b: second number
"""
print(a+b)
if __name__ == "__main__":
import argparse
parser = argparse.ArgumentParser()
parser.add_argument("--a", type=int, required=True, help="first number")
parser.add_argument("--b", type=int, required=True, help="second number")
args = parser.parse_args()
main(**vars(args))
This code is nothing but a simple function that prints a+b and the argument parser asks for a and b. The perhaps not so obvious part is the invocation of the function in which we have ** and vars. vars converts the named tuple args to a dictionary of the form {“a":1, "b":2}, and ** expands the dictionary to be used as arguments for the function. So if you have main(**{"a":1, "b":2}) it is equivalent to main(a=1, b=2).
Let’s refactor the function so that we change the name of the argument a to num.
There are now nearly a million AlphaFold [1] protein structure predictions openly available via AlphaFoldDB [2]. This represents a huge set of new data that can be used for the development of new methods. The options for downloading structures are either in bulk (sorted by genome), or individually from the webpage for a prediction.
If you want just a few hundred or a few thousand specific structures, across different genomes, neither of these options are particularly practical. For example, if you have several thousand experimental structures for which you have their PDB [3] code, and you want to obtain the equivalent AlphaFold predictions, there is another way!
If we take the example of the PDB’s current molecule of the month, pyruvate kinase (PDB code 4FXF), this is how you can go about downloading the equivalent AlphaFold prediction programmatically.
Query UniProt [4] for the corresponding accession number – an example python script is shown below:
