-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 210
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
batch mode does not work? #15
Comments
Hi rczerminski-valo, Sorry about this, the Hope it helps. Best, |
I see. So, if this is the case, my understanding is that the only difference between --ligand and --batch modes is that --batch requires --dir argument with designated directory to write docked ligand files to - is it correct? |
Yep, exact! ;) |
How difficult would it be to modify code to allow for multiple ligands input files and multi-ligand, multi-pose output files? As far as I can tell this (i.e. docking multiple ligands) is rather common usage scenario currently accomplished by scripting around vina executable. |
I think the greater question here is not about whether or not we could, but if we should. The PDB format (which is the basis of the PDBQT format) is pretty clear about the use of
We are aware that many people are using this trick to generate PDBQT files with multiple ligands (along side all the different flavors of the PDB format...), but multiple issues arise from that 1) how would we differentiate multiple poses of the same ligand from different ligands and 2) more importantly the file won't be in PDB(QT) format anymore so you will face the eventual interoperability issues with other programs. Jerome. |
Interoperability issues are definitely important, and yes using PDBQT-like format to store multi-ligand, multi-pose output might be not the good way forward. Some other format more suited for this purpose may offer better solution. I do not know what would be the most suitable one for vina, but some possibilities are, I guess, SDF, CML? Do you think any of these would be suitable? or some other format? |
Hi Ryszard, |
With SDF one solution might be to have simple and well documented convention (so the "consumer" of these files does not have to guess what is what) in the multi-ligand, multi-pose output there could be records clearly marking different molecules and poses associated with them. For example if we have 2 molecules with 3 poses per molecule we would have 6 MOL records in SDF: with (mseq, pseq) fields = (1,1) (1,2) (1,3) (2,1), (2,2) (2,3)
|
JSON based format (ideally some agreed upon standard) might be an interesting possibility as well. There is some discussion around this issue here rdkit/rdkit#1137 ... SDF seems however to be the simplest short (or medium) term solution. |
That's an interesting discussion, thanks for posting it here. It seems that the chemo-informatics experts haven't converged yet. Your suggestion with molecule and conformer indices in the SDF data fields is good. If we get to do this it will probably be very similar to that. |
I am trying to dock multiple ligands using --batch option. My understanding is that input .pdbqt file for this to work should contain multiple ligands following the pattern below:
MODEL 1
... molecule 1 ...
ENDMDL
MODEL 2
... molecule 2 ...
ENDMDL
Maybe my understanding is not correct and some other mechanism should be used or there is a bug, since when I give a .pdbqt file with multiple ligands as an input it fails with "An unknown error occurred" error message.
I attached vina-An-unknown-error-occurred-bug.tar.gz file which should allow to reproduce the issue.
vina-An-unknown-error-occurred-bug.tar.gz
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: