Re: [COOT] Conflicting opinions on what constitutes an alpha1-6 L-fucose between Coot and Privateer: Building L-fucose fails in coot-0.9.8.94

2024-04-26 Thread Markus Meier
Hi Paul, I just rebuilt coot-0.9.8.94, coot-0.9.8.93 and coot-0.9.8.92 from scratch, deleting the previous installs. The glyco validator in version coot-0.9.8.94 is indeed fixed. Thank you so much! Also, coot-0.9.8.93 and coot-0.9.8.92 now build an alpha1-6 fucose correctly into the electron

Re: [COOT] Conflicting opinions on what constitutes an alpha1-6 L-fucose between Coot and Privateer

2024-04-24 Thread Markus Meier
Hi Engin, thank you for all the trouble you went through to make this presentation! The glycosidic bond in your presentation is indeed correct (alpha1-6). Not sure how to interpret the terms axial or equatorial; I followed the definition from here:

Re: [COOT] Conflicting opinions on what constitutes an alpha1-6 L-fucose between Coot and Privateer

2024-04-23 Thread Engin Özkan
I see. Thanks, Paul, for the explanation. Of course you are right, and I see that too despite having the correct ALPHA1-6: find_glycosidic_linkage_type() for A 911 NAG,A 913 FUC returns "BETA1-6" This settles it for me. (I am not sure how Markus got beta-fucoses built by Coot the in the

Re: [COOT] Conflicting opinions on what constitutes an alpha1-6 L-fucose between Coot and Privateer

2024-04-23 Thread Paul Emsley
We are talking about different things, I think. Coot's glyco builder builds alpha 1-6 linked FUC correctly. Coot's glyco validator used to (until this evening) identify the alpha 1-6 linked FUC as a beta anomer (it no longer does). See for example the G8 FUC in 8q5u: Coot 0.9.8.94 now

Re: [COOT] Conflicting opinions on what constitutes an alpha1-6 L-fucose between Coot and Privateer

2024-04-23 Thread Engin Özkan
Hi Markus, I am using Coot that comes with CCP4 8, which has FUC (alpha-L-Fucose) with an oxygen on C1 in the axial position. Which is the correct form, I believe. Using Coot 0.9.8.93, I get my alpha1-6 and alpha1-3 (insect) Fucoses inserted correctly.  I had trouble understanding your

Re: [COOT] Conflicting opinions on what constitutes an alpha1-6 L-fucose between Coot and Privateer

2024-04-22 Thread Paul Emsley
On 17/04/2024 21:07, Markus Meier wrote: Hi Paul, thank you for implementing the Glyco module in Coot! It is not in Coot 1 (yet). It needs to be rewritten. I used its "Add N-linked Glycan" function to build an N-linked glycan which contains L-fucose with an alpha1-6 glycosidic linkage on

Re: [COOT] Conflicting opinions on what constitutes an alpha1-6 L-fucose between Coot and Privateer

2024-04-18 Thread Markus Meier
Hi Engin, hmm, it appears I was using the monomer library from https://www2.mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk/personal/pemsley/coot/dependencies/monomers-2023-01-02-23:57:29.tar.gz (it gets installed automatically with Coot's build-it script). However, the files in question (FUC.cif, NAG.cif, BMA.cif and

Re: [COOT] Conflicting opinions on what constitutes an alpha1-6 L-fucose between Coot and Privateer

2024-04-18 Thread Engin Özkan
Hi Markus, There were reports to the ccp4bb and phenixbb back in 2011 about something similar. The monomer library files for FUC and/or the linkage definitions for refmac/phenix were not right. I think. My recollection is that this was corrected, and I could not reproduce your observation.

[COOT] Conflicting opinions on what constitutes an alpha1-6 L-fucose between Coot and Privateer

2024-04-17 Thread Markus Meier
Hi Paul, thank you for implementing the Glyco module in Coot! I used its "Add N-linked Glycan" function to build an N-linked glycan which contains L-fucose with an alpha1-6 glycosidic linkage on the first N-acetyl glucosamine of the tree. However, after exporting the tree, I checked it with