Exploring the CovR/S Two-Component System in Streptococcus pyogenes

Sat, 16 May 2026 00:00:00 +0000

Exploring the CovR/S two-component system in Group A Strep 🧫 — from genome annotation with Bakta & BaktFold, to AlphaFold confidence metrics, and a first attempt at protein docking with Haddock3. Learning as we go! 🙌

Motivations

Since the last ampC adventure, I’m really curious about the mechanism of some of these bacterial virulence. Remember how chromosomal ampC organisms use ampG, ampD, and then ampR to repress class C beta lactamase gene? It’s such an orchestrated endeavor. What about streptococcus pyogenes and its virulence? How can it be a colonizer on one end and then virulence on the other that caused a number of devastating infection? Let’s learn a bit of the mechanism, and of course why not use this opportunity too to learn some other bioinformatic tools along the way? And see if we can use existing knowledge to make it more fun and educational! I’m looking forward to this! Join me in exploring the mechanism of the CovR/S two-component system in streptococcus pyogenes, aka Group A strep!

Objectives:

What is CovR/S Two-component System?

The CovR/S (Control of Virulence) system functions as a sophisticated environmental sensor that integrates multiple host-derived signals to orchestrate the transition from colonization to invasive disease. The evidence reveals three primary environmental triggers that modulate this master regulatory system. Simplistically, CovS (Sensor) senses first -> gets activated -> trigger CovR (Regulator) -> downstream repression. Breakage of such system will de-repress the virulence factors.

Magnesium Levels: The Baseline Sensor High extracellular magnesium concentrations (typical of healthy tissue) activate CovS kinase activity, leading to increased CovR phosphorylation and repression of virulence genes. This creates a colonization-friendly state where GAS maintains low virulence factor expression suitable for asymptomatic carriage.
LL-37 Antimicrobial Peptide: The Invasion Signal LL-37 cathelicidin peptide — released by neutrophils and epithelial cells during inflammation — directly binds to the extracellular domain of CovS and inhibits its kinase activity. This creates a paradoxical host-pathogen interaction where the host’s antimicrobial defense actually triggers bacterial virulence. LL-37 binding to CovS reduces CovR phosphorylation, leading to derepression of multiple virulence factors including pyrogenic exotoxin A, DNase Sda1, streptolysin O, and hyaluronic acid capsule. Critically, LL-37 signaling converts GAS from a colonizing to an invasive phenotype, with marked increases in resistance to opsonophagocytic killing by human leukocytes.
Acidic Stress: The Tissue Environment Sensor Acidic conditions (pH < 7.0, typical of infected or inflamed tissue) enhance CovR/S-dependent gene repression through activation of the covR/S promoter itself. This creates a negative feedback loop where tissue acidosis increases CovR/S expression, which then more strongly represses virulence factors.

Below is an image referenced directly from source that depicts the mechanism of CovR/S system in streptococcus pyogenes.

Let’s Look A Where Does It Show in NCBI

Let’s go to here. I picked out streptococcus pyogenes reference genome annotation and search for cov and this popped up.

There you go! CovS and CovR. Sometimes these system can also be known as CsrR/CsrS (Capsule Synthesis Regulator). There may have been 2 different research groups discovered these identical gene and called it differently?

It’s also so interesting that these 2 genes are so close to each other. 🤔

What If We Have WGS? How to Annotate?

Alright, let’s pick a random streptococcus pyogenes and see if we can use bakta to help us annotate. Let’s look at this one.

Install Bakta, see here

#make sure you use the environment name you created
conda activate bakta_env 

bakta \
  --db /path/to/bakta_db \
  --output rabdom_bakta_output \
  --prefix random \
  --threads 8 \
  --skip-crispr \
  --force \
  random.fna

After it is done, when you look in the folder, you will see something like this

When we look at the annotated gff3 file, we can see that there are 2 features annotated as two-component system response regulator and two-component system sensor histidine kinase. These are likely to be CovR and CovS.

library(ape)
library(tidyverse)

readLines("random.gff3") |> str_detect("FASTA") |> which() #found fasta, apparently bakta has ###FASTA inserted and ape cannot handle

## [1] 2025

tmp <- tempfile()
readLines("random.gff3")[1:2024] |> writeLines(tmp)
gff <- read.gff(tmp, GFF3 = T)
gff |>
  filter(str_detect(attributes, "[Cc][Oo][Vv]"))

##        seqid    source type  start    end score strand phase
## 331 contig_1 Pyrodigal  CDS 303144 303830    NA      +     0
## 332 contig_1 Pyrodigal  CDS 303836 305338    NA      +     0
##                                                                                                                                                                                                                             attributes
## 331           ID=EEBJGP_00327;Name=two-component system response regulator CovR;locus_tag=EEBJGP_00327;product=two-component system response regulator CovR;Dbxref=BlastRules:WP_002991052,SO:0001217,UniRef:UniRef50_Q49XM7;gene=covR
## 332 ID=EEBJGP_00328;Name=two-component system sensor histidine kinase CovS;locus_tag=EEBJGP_00328;product=two-component system sensor histidine kinase CovS;Dbxref=BlastRules:WP_002991036,SO:0001217,UniRef:UniRef50_D3KVE8;gene=covS

There you go! We found them after annotation. Wait a minute… what are those hypotheticals on our folder? Why are they there? Are they important? Let’s find out.

What Are Hypothetical?

Hypotheticals are those proteins that we don’t know what they do. They are annotated as “hypothetical protein” because they are predicted to be proteins based on the DNA sequence, but we have no experimental evidence of their function. They are often annotated as “hypothetical” because they have no known homologs in other organisms, or because they have no known domains or motifs that can be used to predict their function.

When we take a peek at the random.hypotheticals.tsv, it looks like this:

Let’s check how many hypotheticals we have here for this genome

tmp <- tempfile()
readLines("random.hypotheticals.tsv")[3:194] |> writeLines(tmp)
hypo <- read_tsv(tmp)
nrow(hypo)

## [1] 191

OK we have 191 of hypotheticals. Let’s see if a new tool on the block will be able to add some annotation to these hypotheticals and see if we can find anything interesting. We could also use filter and see if we can see those hypotheticals

gff |>
  filter(str_detect(attributes,"hypothetical protein")) |>
  nrow()

## [1] 192

Hmm.. they don’t tally. But let’s move on.

A New Tool Called BaktFold

BaktFold is a new tool that uses AlphaFold to predict the structure of proteins and then uses that structure to predict the function of the protein. It is a very powerful tool that can be used to annotate hypothetical proteins. Check out their paper

baktfold run \
  -i random.json \
  -o random_baktfold_output \
  -d /path/to/baktfold_db \
  -t 8 \
  -f

readLines("baktfold.gff3") |> str_detect("FASTA") |> which() #found fasta, apparently bakta has ###FASTA inserted and ape cannot handle

## [1] 2025

tmp <- tempfile()
readLines("baktfold.gff3")[1:2024] |> writeLines(tmp)
gff_baktfold <- read.gff(tmp, GFF3 = T)
gff_baktfold |>
  filter(str_detect(attributes,"hypothetical protein")) |>
  nrow()

## [1] 106

Wow, this is really cool! We can see that we have much less hypotheticals! About 86 less! Let’s take a look what were previous hypotheticals and what they are annotated now and how?

gff_hypo <- gff |>
  filter(str_detect(attributes,"hypothetical protein")) |>
  pull(start)

new_df <- tibble(start = gff_hypo, temp = NA)

gff_baktfold_hypo <- gff_baktfold |>
  right_join(new_df) |>
  mutate(temp = case_when(
    !str_detect(attributes,"hypothetical protein") ~ attributes,
    TRUE ~ temp
  ))

## Joining with `by = join_by(start)`

Take a look at the image above, if you see temp column with NA, that would be hypotheticals from bakta. If you see it filled, it means baktfold was able to identify it across one or more databases. It’s interesting how baktfold work, it conducts sequential protein structure-based searches against four complementary structure databases (SwissProt, Alphafold Cluster Database, PDB, CATH). Protein sequences are transformed into Foldseek 3Di tokens via the ProstT5 protein language model and subsequently searched against structure databases via Foldseek. Pretty cool! Also, interestingly, when comparing a few of the baktfold predicted functional proteins with NCBI’s annotation, we sometimes do see some baktfold-annotated functions whereas NCBI labeled them as uncharacterized gene. This is not an exhaustive or thorough comparison by any means, but interesting to note.

Speaking of AlphaFold, we’ve always wanted to know a bit more about AlphaFold confidence. When we look at the predicted structure of a protein, how do we know if we can trust it? What is an acceptable AlphaFold confidence? Let’s learn a bit more.

What Is An Acceptable AlphaFold Confidence?

**These are edited responses from back-and-forth Claude Sonnet 4.6 query, **

AlphaFold reports per-residue confidence as per-residue confidence as pLDDT (predicted local distance difference test), scored 0–100:

pLDDT	Interpretation
> 90	High confidence — trust side-chain positions
70–90	Good — backbone reliable, some side-chain uncertainty
50–70	Low — treat as a rough scaffold only
< 50	Likely disordered or misfolded prediction

It tells you how well-placed AlphaFold thinks each amino acid is relative to nearby residues. Crucially, it is not a measure of experimental validation — it is the model’s self-assessed confidence.

For docking, pLDDT is essentially a proxy for how much you can trust the binding pocket geometry. Active site residues need pLDDT ≥ 90 ideally, with ≥ 70 as a minimum. Second-shell residues within ~8 Å should also clear 70, and any low-confidence loops capping the binding site entrance are a red flag even if the catalytic residues themselves look fine. Meaning, might be a good idea to visualize with B factor in ChimeraX to ensure the binding sites are acceptable.

For MD, it seems to be a bit more forgiving. Regions scoring 70–90 will generally equilibrate fine — the force field redistributes strain and lets uncertain side chains settle. Regions in the 50–70 band need longer equilibration (100+ ns) and staged restraint release to avoid unphysical collapse (interesting area to explore). Below 50, MD often can’t rescue the geometry — these regions should either be truncated if non-essential, cross-checked against other databases, or explored with enhanced sampling methods. 🤔 OK what about PAE on their website?

PAE (predicted aligned error) is the second major confidence metric AlphaFold produces, and it tells you something fundamentally different from pLDDT. Where pLDDT is a per-residue score asking “how confident am I in this residue’s local geometry,” PAE is a pairwise score asking “how confident am I in the relative position and orientation of residue A with respect to residue B.” It’s an N×N matrix where every cell (i,j) contains the expected position error in Å for residue j when residue i is used as the alignment reference.

Why it matters? pLDDT can look great across an entire protein — every residue scores above 80 — but if the PAE between two domains is high, that confident-looking structure is misleading. The two domains are individually well-folded, but AlphaFold is telling you it has no idea how they pack against each other. For docking, check the PAE within the domain containing your binding site — you want a dark block there, confirming the domain’s internal geometry is reliable as a unit. For MD, high inter-domain PAE is a heads-up that you may need enhanced sampling to explore the conformational space between domains rather than assuming the AlphaFold pose is the dominant one.

Two metrics before trusting AlphaFold. pLDDT is local — want ≥ 70 at active site, ≥ 90 for catalytic residues. PAE is pairwise — dark green means confident relative positioning between any two residues. Single-chain: check diagonal at binding site. Multi-chain: off-diagonal blocks tell you if the predicted interface is real. Check both before docking or MD.

Do All Streptococcus Pyogenes Have CovR/S Two-component System?

Interestingly, after downloaded 2840 Streptococcus pyogenes refseq annotation feature (gff3), I found 99.96% (2839/2840) of these contain CovR/S genes. Why not 100%? Turns out to be this GCF_005472355.1 that doesn’t have CovR/S listed in the annotation. I used Bakta to annotate it, and still no luck. Then used Baktfold to further annotate, couldn’t find it either. Used tblastn to look for CovR/S protein, the best return was 42% identity. Wow, does this isolate really have absent gene for those 2? 🤔

Note: Expand below to see the utility of using –dehydrate and then rehydrate for downloading and annotating large number of genomes.

code in terminal

datasets download genome taxon "Streptococcus pyogenes" \
  --annotated \
  --assembly-source refseq \
  --include gff3 \
  --dehydrated \
  --filename strep_pyogenes_refseq_gff3.zip

datasets rehydrate --directory strep_pyogenes_refseq_gff3/ --max-workers 10

Do Other Streptococcus species Have CovR/S Two-component System?

We’ve seen what other streptococcus can do clinically, I wonder if they have similar system when compared to streptococcus pyogenes. Let’ download all reference gene of streptococcus genus and see if we can find it in their annotations.

code

#### Terminal

datasets download genome taxon "Streptococcus" \
  --reference \
  --include gff3 \
  --assembly-source RefSeq \
  --dehydrated \
  --filename strep_dehydrated.zip

unzip strep_dehydrated.zip

datasets rehydrate --directory strep_dehydrated

Downloaded the above gff3, then used claude code to find covS and covR in their annotation and output to a csv, since these are reference genes, it should be quite reliable.

R

df_cov <- read_csv("covr_covs_annotation.csv")

df_cov_single <- df_cov |>
  filter(covR_present == "yes" & covS_present == "no") |> 
  pull(organism) 

df_cov |> head(10)

## # A tibble: 10 × 8
##    accession  organism covR_present covS_present covR_gene_names covS_gene_names
##    <chr>      <chr>    <chr>        <chr>        <chr>           <chr>          
##  1 GCF_00002… Strepto… no           no           <NA>            <NA>           
##  2 GCF_00016… Strepto… no           no           <NA>            <NA>           
##  3 GCF_00018… Strepto… no           no           <NA>            <NA>           
##  4 GCF_00018… Strepto… no           no           <NA>            <NA>           
##  5 GCF_00018… Strepto… yes          no           covR            <NA>           
##  6 GCF_00018… Strepto… yes          no           covR            <NA>           
##  7 GCF_00022… Strepto… no           no           <NA>            <NA>           
##  8 GCF_00025… Strepto… no           no           <NA>            <NA>           
##  9 GCF_00037… Strepto… no           no           <NA>            <NA>           
## 10 GCF_00037… Strepto… no           no           <NA>            <NA>           
## # ℹ 2 more variables: covR_annotation <chr>, covS_annotation <chr>

Wow, amonng the streptococcus species (n=153) streptococcus pyogenes appears to be the ONLY species that contains both CovR/S two-component system?

Interestingly, there were 17 that have covR but not covS.

These are Streptococcus parauberis NCFD 2020, Streptococcus ictaluri 707-05, Streptococcus didelphis DSM 15616, Streptococcus castoreus DSM 17536, Streptococcus iniae, Streptococcus phocae, Streptococcus bovimastitidis, Streptococcus catagoni, Streptococcus equi subsp. zooepidemicus, Streptococcus dysgalactiae, Streptococcus halichoeri, Streptococcus penaeicida, Streptococcus hongkongensis, Streptococcus porcinus, Streptococcus uberis, Streptococcus canis, Streptococcus pseudoporcinus. How curious! 🧐

What Does CovR Look Like?

Let’s take a look at Alpha Fold Database. Looking at CovR active site, mutation of D53A showed no dimerization of CoVR, which means that is a phosphylation site. Dimerization means that another phosphorylated CovR molecule is binding to another phosphorylated CovR, which is the active form of CovR. Which then binds to the DNA and represses the virulence genes.

The above shows both the PAE, plDDT and the predicted structure. The PAE is pretty good, the plDDT is also pretty good, with most of the residues above 70. The predicted structure also looks pretty reasonable, with the active site D53 highlighted in red.

What would a Phosphorylated CovR Look like?

Apparently for a CovR with D53E mutation (so it mimics the phosphorylated state), the structure is quite different from the wild type. The D53E mutation causes a conformational change that allows CovR to dimerize and bind to DNA, even in the absence of phosphorylation. Let’s visualize a D53E CovR predicted by AF3.

We can see that the highlighted portion is glutamine which is E. I’m not sure if I can tell the difference between wild-type and D53E. Let’s plug it into R and see if we can see differences in RMSD

library(bio3d)

covr_wt <- read.pdb("AF-D3KVK6-F1-model_v6.pdb")
covr_d53e <- read.pdb("covr_d53e_chainA.pdb")
covr_wt_idx <- atom.select(covr_wt, "calpha")
covr_d53e_idx <- atom.select(covr_d53e, "calpha")
fit <- fit.xyz(fixed = covr_wt$xyz, 
               mobile = covr_d53e$xyz, 
               fixed.inds  = covr_wt_idx$xyz,
                mobile.inds = covr_d53e_idx$xyz)

n_res <- length(covr_wt_idx$atom)
n_res_seq <- seq(1,n_res*3,3)

rmsd_vec <- vector(mode = "numeric", length=length(covr_wt_idx$atom))

for (i in 1:n_res) {
  idx <- c(n_res_seq[i]:(n_res_seq[i]+2))
  rmsd_vec[i] <- rmsd(covr_wt$xyz[covr_wt_idx$xyz][idx], fit[covr_d53e_idx$xyz][idx])
}

df <- tibble(
  residue = covr_wt$atom$resno[covr_wt_idx$atom],
  aa = covr_wt$seqres,
  rms = rmsd_vec
)

df |>
  ggplot(aes(x=residue,y=rms)) +
  geom_line() +
  geom_label(aes(label=aa),size=2) +
  theme_bw()

Alright, what this tells us is that certain residues actually didn’t vary much, but if we start seeing higher rmsd such as residue 180s, those are really high rmsd. Later on after hoddock, we’ll see if we can correlate these high RMSD residues to residues in protein-protein complex that interacted.

Next we’ll take a look at using Haddock3 for the first time and we see what we get. Our assessment is to evaluate the haddock score and body surface area (BSA) to see if a dimerization of 2 of the same covr (D53 vs D53E) would be more favorable in comparison. Since we’ve never done this before, we had Claude Code set up for us. This is mainly for my notes purposes so in the future when I review back I can reference and modify accordingly. The steps are:

Prepare the input files: Duplicate the CovR pdb but change the chain to A and B.
Set up the haddock input files: Create a text file of active and passive residue, then use haddodck3-restratins to genereate tbl file. The text file will look something like this

we can create the actpass_A.txt file with the following content:

create actpass_A.txt

87 88 89 90 91 98 99 100 101 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 120 121
81 82 83 84 85 86 93 94 102 103 104 105 119 122 123 124 125 126

With the above of alpha4-beta5-alpha5 the first row are active residues - solve-exposed residues; the 2nd row is passive residues - surface-exposed neighbors surrounding the active patch. Then we use haddock-restraint

Generate tbl file

conda run --name haddock3 haddock3-restraints active_passive_to_ambig \
      actpass_A.txt actpass_A.txt \
      --segid-one A --segid-two B \
      > ambig_covr_dimer.tbl

This basically tells haddock3 that residue 87 in chain A should interact with residue 87, 88, etc. in chain B with a distance of 2.0 Å and a weight of 1.0. which looks something like this

assign (resi 87 and segid A)
  (
         (resi 87 and segid B)
          or
         (resi 88 and segid B)
          or
         ...
  ) 2.0 2.0 0.0

Create a covr_dimer_workflow.toml file to specify the parameters for the docking run.

Create covr_dimer_workflow.toml

  run_dir = "run_covr_dimer"
  mode = "local"
  ncores = 4
  postprocess = true

  molecules = [
      "covr_d53e_chainA.pdb",
      "covr_d53e_chainB.pdb",
  ]

  [topoaa]
  autotoppar = false
  delenph = true

  [rigidbody]
  ambig_fname = "ambig_covr_dimer.tbl"
  sampling = 200
  sym_on = true
  nc2sym = 1
  c2sym_sta1_1 = 1
  c2sym_end1_1 = 228
  c2sym_seg1_1 = "A"
  c2sym_sta2_1 = 1
  c2sym_end2_1 = 228
  c2sym_seg2_1 = "B"

  [seletop]
  select = 100
  
  [flexref]
  ambig_fname = "ambig_covr_dimer.tbl"
  sym_on = true
  nc2sym = 1
  c2sym_sta1_1 = 1
  c2sym_end1_1 = 228
  c2sym_seg1_1 = "A"
  c2sym_sta2_1 = 1
  c2sym_end2_1 = 228
  c2sym_seg2_1 = "B"

  [emref]
  ambig_fname = "ambig_covr_dimer.tbl"
  sym_on = true
  nc2sym = 1
  c2sym_sta1_1 = 1
  c2sym_end1_1 = 228
  c2sym_seg1_1 = "A"
  c2sym_sta2_1 = 1
  c2sym_end2_1 = 228
  c2sym_seg2_1 = "B"

  [clustfcc]
  plot_matrix = true

  [seletopclusts]
  top_models = 4

  [emscoring]

The above you would have to change some of the settings and param including your tbl, pdb files. And change your ncore accordingly

Run Haddock: Use the command line to run Haddock with your input files. For example:

conda install - c bioconda -n haddock3 haddock3
conda activate haddock3
haddock3 -i it1.pdb -r it1.tbl -o haddock_output

What does Haddock3 do? Haddock3 is a flexible docking software that allows you to model the interaction between two or more biomolecules (like proteins) based on experimental data or predicted interactions. It uses a combination of rigid-body docking, semi-flexible refinement, and scoring to predict the most likely binding modes between the molecules. The workflow of Haddock3 goes like this rigid pose -> flexible refinement -> scoring -> clustering.

Look at the analysis results

result_d53 <- read_tsv("capri_ss_d53.tsv") |> arrange(caprieval_rank) |> mutate(prot="d53") |> slice_head(n=5)
result_d53e <- read_tsv("capri_ss_d53e.tsv") |> arrange(caprieval_rank) |> mutate(prot="d53e") |> slice_head(n=5)
compare_result <- rbind(result_d53,result_d53e) |>
  select(score,bsa,total,prot) |>
  pivot_longer(cols = c(score:total), names_to = "param", values_to = "values") 

compare_result |>
  ggplot(aes(x=prot,y=values,fill=prot)) +
  geom_boxplot(alpha=0.2,width=0.3) +
  geom_violin(alpha=0.5) +
  facet_wrap(.~param, scale="free_y") +
  theme_bw()

Among the top 5 ranked docking models, the phosphomimetic D53E mutant demonstrated consistently superior HADDOCK3 scores (median −138.1 vs −117.4 kcal/mol) and substantially larger buried surface area (median 2,567 vs 2,161 Ų, +18.8%), supporting enhanced dimerization propensity. Energy decomposition revealed that D53E gains its advantage primarily through van der Waals interactions (median −86.3 vs −32.7 kcal/mol, ~2.6×), despite weaker electrostatic contributions (median −335.7 vs −514.1 kcal/mol). Not really sure what this means. 🤔 But let’s visualize our rank 1 pdb!

Note to self: BSA is calculated by taking the sum of the solvent-accessible surface areas (SASA) of the two individual proteins and subtracting the SASA of the complex. A larger BSA indicates a more extensive interface between the two proteins, which often correlates with stronger binding affinity. In this case, the D53E mutant’s larger BSA suggests it forms a more stable dimer compared to the wild-type D53, consistent with its role as a phosphomimetic that promotes dimerization and activation of CovR.

Let’s see which residues of these 2 chains interact!

haddock_d53e_d53e <- read.pdb("emscoring_1.pdb")

chainA <- atom.select(haddock_d53e_d53e, chain = "A")
chainB <- atom.select(haddock_d53e_d53e, chain = "B")
dist_matrix <- dist.xyz(chainA$xyz, chainB$xyz)
  
get_interface <- function(pdb, cutoff = 5.0) {
  
  chainA <- atom.select(pdb, chain = "A")
  chainB <- atom.select(pdb, chain = "B")
  
  # Get coordinates as matrices
  coordA <- matrix(pdb$xyz[chainA$xyz], ncol = 3, byrow = TRUE)
  coordB <- matrix(pdb$xyz[chainB$xyz], ncol = 3, byrow = TRUE)
  
  # Find contacting atom indices
  contact_i <- c()
  contact_j <- c()
  
  for (i in 1:nrow(coordA)) {
    dists <- sqrt(rowSums(sweep(coordB, 2, coordA[i,])^2))
    hits <- which(dists < cutoff)
    if (length(hits) > 0) {
      contact_i <- c(contact_i, rep(i, length(hits)))
      contact_j <- c(contact_j, hits)
    }
  }
  
  # Map back to residues
  resA <- pdb$atom[chainA$atom[unique(contact_i)], ] |>
    as_tibble() |>
    distinct(resno, resid) |>
    mutate(chain = "A")
  
  resB <- pdb$atom[chainB$atom[unique(contact_j)], ] |>
    as_tibble() |>
    distinct(resno, resid) |>
    mutate(chain = "B")
  
  bind_rows(resA, resB)
}

cont <- get_interface(haddock_d53e_d53e) |>
  filter(chain == "A") |> 
  select(residue=resno, aa=resid) |>
  mutate(contact = 1)

df |>
  left_join(cont, by = c("residue","aa")) |>
  mutate(contact = case_when(
    is.na(contact) ~ 0,
    TRUE ~ contact
  )) |>
  ggplot(aes(x=residue,y=rms)) +
  geom_line() +
  ggrepel::geom_label_repel(aes(label=aa,fill=as.factor(contact)),alpha=0.5,size=2) +
  theme_bw() +
  theme(legend.position = "none")

I couldn’t easily find a function in bio3d to look for closer contact between the 2 chains, hence got Claude to produce a code to filter out anything less 5 Angstrom and map it back to our RMSD df. Wow, interesting! Not all high rmsd are close contact residues, and not all close contact residues are high in rmsd. 🤔

Final Thoughts

Wow, all of the above took a long time! But it was quite interesting to learn several things here. We learnt quite a few things here. It’s our first time running a protein-protein docking! 🙌 Even though I don’t deeply understand the method and the results, it’s a good start! Let’s keep at it and learn some more next time! If you notice something wrong here, please feel free to let me know!

Opportunities For Improvement

Need to explore Prots5 and Foldseek in the future, the concept is quite interesting. Turning 3D coordinates into one dimention, very latent spacey.
Need to understand haddock3 a bit more, the method and its output
Need to understand how alpha helices and beta sheets occur, the math behind it and see if we can reproduce that from scratch
Need to figure out how to reproduce a phosphorylated CovR structure instead of using a phosphomimetic
Need to learn pymol

Lessons learnt

learnt CovR/S two-component system in streptococcus pyogenes
learnt what hypotheticals are, and what other methods we can use to further identify these hypotheticals
learnt strep pyogenes is the only strep species (reference gene only) that has CovR/S, some other strep species have CovR but no CovS.
learnt Baktfold
learnt the bare basics of haddock3
learnt RMSD, BSA, haddock score, angstrom unit (just eucleadian distance of xyz)

If you like this article:

please feel free to send me a comment or visit my other blogs
please feel free to follow me on BlueSky, twitter, GitHub or Mastodon
if you would like collaborate please feel free to contact me

hypothetical proteins on Everyday Is A School Day