Skip to main content

Proposed CDK changes related to PDBReader and BioPolymer

This is expanding on one of the points that Rajarshi made in his blog (which he followed up here) on the PDB file handling capabilities of the CDK. There are two related topics : reading of PDB format files (the ancient, fixed column-width ATOM files) and the model that these are read into.


The old PDB format is being replaced with mmCIF and/or PDBML formats. Only there are lots of programs that write out this format, so it makes sense to still support it for a while at least.

However, it is a quite nasty format, in some ways. Not so much the fixed column width, but the fact that crystallographers abuse the file format in all sorts of ways. Even simple things like expecting that atom numbers will always increase, may not be true.

So it is not easy making a good reader for PDB files. The current CDK one won't read a file with just ATOM records, for example. Think that's reasonable? Well, tough luck for people that made programs that produce simple files like this.

A more serious problem is the fact that you can't get properly connected ligands from a PDB file. Or easily get at the disordered regions. Or get at the waters. Well, sort of - I suppose that many of these things can be done after reading, with CDK classes.


In some ways - so long as the atoms are read in - anything can be done to the model post-reading. However, the point of having data model classes like Polymer and BioPolymer is to capture some of the complexity of the macromolecule's organisation.

BioPolymer and the PDBReader do a good job of reading and storing the information in the header files (except that it is not always right!). Apart from calling chains 'Strands', some things are done reasonably well. I don't think that ligand atoms should be stored 'loose' as they are, but probably in referenced atom containers.

The real difficulty with modelling proteins lies with representing the hierarchy. One way is 'PMCA' - protein, model, chain, atom. This misses out secondary structure, but it may be too literal to have objects for every concept; the CDK stores the secondary structure given in the header file as IPDBStructure objects - with insertion codes, which is good to see.

However, there are more secondary structures than helix, turn, and strand. I'm never quite sure what the best way to model the more flexible situation, though.

Integration with biojava

It seems a shame that several open source java projects have very little in the way of integration (that I can see). At least on this topic. Of course, Egon (among others) has done work on both both CDK and Jmol, but it concerns me that incompatible ways of doing things lead to projects drifting apart, that should work together.

For example, here is a class I wrote today (for someone else) that uses both biojava and the CDK. It is very much a hack, but the key point is the method makeLigandsFromGroups that takes both a List of biojava.Group objects and a List of IMolecules, along the way converting biojava Atoms to CDK Atoms.

Clearly, biojava has a better interface to its model as you can get a List of the hetatm groups. The CDK, on the other hand, has better support for determining atom types and setting properties on them.


Popular posts from this blog

Generating Dungeons With BSP Trees or Sliceable Rectangles

So, I admit that the original reason for looking at sliceable rectangles was because of this gaming stackoverflow question about generating dungeon maps. The approach described there uses something called a binary split partition tree (BSP Tree) that's usually used in the context of 3D - notably in the rendering engine of the game Doom. Here is a BSP tree, as an example:

In the image, we have a sliced rectangle on the left, with the final rectangles labelled with letters (A-E) and the slices with numbers (1-4). The corresponding tree is on the right, with the slices as internal nodes labelled with 'h' for horizontal and 'v' for vertical. Naturally, only the leaves correspond to rectangles, and each internal node has two children - it's a binary tree.

So what is the connection between such trees and the sliceable dual graphs? Well, the rectangles are related in exactly the expected way:

Here, the same BSP tree is on the left (without some labels), and the slicea…

Listing Degree Restricted Trees

Although stack overflow is generally just an endless source of questions on the lines of "HALP plz give CODES!? ... NOT homeWORK!! - don't close :(" occasionally you get more interesting ones. For example this one that asks about degree-restricted trees. Also there's some stuff about vertex labelling, but I think I've slightly missed something there.

In any case, lets look at the simpler problem : listing non-isomorphic trees with max degree 3. It's a nice small example of a general approach that I've been thinking about. The idea is to:
Given N vertices, partition 2(N - 1) into N parts of at most 3 -> D = {d0, d1, ... }For each d_i in D, connect the degrees in all possible ways that make trees.Filter out duplicates within each set generated by some d_i. Hmm. Sure would be nice to have maths formatting on blogger....

Anyway, look at this example for partitioning 12 into 7 parts:

At the top are the partitions, in the middle the trees (colored by degree) …

Common Vertex Matrices of Graphs

There is an interesting set of papers out this year by Milan Randic et al (sorry about the accents - blogger seems to have a problem with accented 'c'...). I've looked at his work before here.

[1] Common vertex matrix: A novel characterization of molecular graphs by counting
[2] On the centrality of vertices of molecular graphs

and one still in publication to do with fullerenes. The central idea here (ho ho) is a graph descriptor a bit like path lengths called 'centrality'. Briefly, it is the count of neighbourhood intersections between pairs of vertices. Roughly this is illustrated here:

For the selected pair of vertices, the common vertices are those at the same distance from each - one at a distance of two and one at a distance of three. The matrix element for this pair will be the sum - 2 - and this is repeated for all pairs in the graph. Naturally, this is symmetric:

At the right of the matrix is the row sum (∑) which can be ordered to provide a graph invarian…