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

Poor handling of short repeats #88

Open
sbliven opened this issue Jun 30, 2016 · 1 comment
Open

Poor handling of short repeats #88

sbliven opened this issue Jun 30, 2016 · 1 comment
Assignees
Milestone

Comments

@sbliven
Copy link
Collaborator

sbliven commented Jun 30, 2016

  1. The --simple output gives the message "Refinement was not significant (TM=0.63)" (e.g. for 1l0s.A) if the refinement doesn't meet the minlen threshold. It should give a more informative message like "Repeats were too short (core-length=5)"
  2. (Bonus) Short repeats should be combined to make longer repeats, rather than rejecting it altogether.
@lafita lafita added this to the CeSymm-2.0 milestone Jun 30, 2016
@lafita lafita self-assigned this Jun 30, 2016
@lafita
Copy link
Collaborator

lafita commented Jun 30, 2016

I see some complications in combining short repeats into longer ones, because the final length of the repeats is only known after optimization. Thus, it would require an additional optimization after merging some of the repeats.

In addition, we would need to know the optimal factor of the number of repeats to combine. For example:

  • for 6 short repeats, should we combine 2 or 3 of them?
  • and what should we do for 7 short repeats, drop the highest RMSD terminal residue?

On the one hand I agree that the repeat number and length is very much dependent on the optimal self-alignment, and that is a problem for short OPEN repeats. The order detector has less information than for CLOSED repeats.
On the other hand, this only applies to very short repeats (less than 15 residues), which have generally poor signal and are better detected by other algorithms (solenoid or TPR detection), so CE-Symm is not the optimal approach for detecting them.

@sbliven sbliven modified the milestones: CeSymm-2.0, CeSymm-3.0 Jun 13, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants