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

pdb_renameatom - Renames atoms. #113

Closed

Conversation

joaomcteixeira
Copy link
Member

Adds a tool to rename atom names.

Sometimes when exchanging PDBs between programs we find atom names are not compatible. For example, here is a table with the different atom name nomenclatures for some of the most relevant software and databases in the field.

This tool comes also as a request from my colleagues at @formankay lab, yet I trust it will be very helpful for the whole community.

What it does:

Atom names are renamed and formatted according to the element type. In case of missing elements, the atom name will be left-justified to four characters.

@JoaoRodrigues I added only my name in the authors and copyright just because of what we commented in #112. But just add also yours if you feel so, or we can use instead CSB Group, @amjjbonvin

NOTE: add [FEATURE] in the commit message when merging.

Copy link
Member

@amjjbonvin amjjbonvin left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Seems like an interesting tool. I could see more name categories, e.g. HADDOCK - could be the xplor one already matches it - Gromacs, ...

@joaomcteixeira
Copy link
Member Author

The tool now is agnostic, as the user has to provide the original atom name and the target atom name. I haven't built any translation tables inside. Yet, @JoaoRodrigues commented that translation tables might be good. However, having translation tables directly in this tool would make the tools strict and not agnostic. Honestly, I think we should keep the tool agnostic and build the tables a layer above (in some other script or project). What are your thoughts?

@amjjbonvin
Copy link
Member

Probably a good strategy, but then we should at least provide a few translation tables, otherwise nobody will use the tool (experienced users will have their own scripts).

@joaomcteixeira
Copy link
Member Author

Okay, so I will make some translation tables and have those as options. Still, I will keep this script somewhere and make a new PR.

@joaomcteixeira
Copy link
Member Author

Because both @JoaoRodrigues and @amjjbonvin agree on going to a conversion table. I am closing this PR and opening a new one for the new tool.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants