-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 24
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
Implementation of MC bending sampling #344
Conversation
some observation: stiff polymers where |
summoning @pckroon for a technical code review |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Some small comments, mostly superficial
Co-authored-by: Peter C Kroon <pckroon@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Peter C Kroon <pckroon@users.noreply.github.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM, assuming you addressed all my previous comments
This code implements a local bending stiffness to the polymers. The idea is that one can set a bending constant for any triplet of residues. Subsequently, during the RW protocol the angle if a trail is accepted or rejected according to a MC-like procedure. First, the normalized probability of an angle is computed using:
This probability distribution is about equal for low values of lp and has an increased probability at higher angles with increasing lp. Note lp is a dimensionless bending constant not per se the persistence length. Once the probability is computed we check if the value is higher than the previous bending probability. If yes the move is accepted and if not we compare it to the probability of a uniform sampling of the distribution.
So far bending constant can be given as tuples of three residue names. This means local bending stiffness can be accounted for. We could therefore use it to really fine-tune the DNA parameters. However, it also means the bending term is non-symmetric which means for combinations of many different monomers this might become cumbersome. Ideally, we could set a default value for all monomers.
Points to discuss:
@jan-stevens let me know your thoughts.
I did some testing of this implementation and in general works quite well to reproduce the expected end-to-end distance by setting an appropriately large bending constant. Any relation to the experimental value of lp is, however, to me not obvious. Probably the estimated volume of the residue itself contributes to the stiffness to some extent so one potentially has to determine a qualitative bending constant by trail and error. For DNA, we can simply figure it out and report. The main limitation of this implementation is that the distributions are not as peaked for cases where
contour-length >~ lp
. In those cases the WCM distributions are probably not too good either.