I appreciate learning that the R32/H32 tangle was based on a wwPDB
recommendation. For some reason, I find it calming to view this as a PDB issue
and not a ccp4 one. Ron
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009, Eleanor Dodson wrote:
Just a correction - ccp4 had NOTHING to do with H32 definitions - just followed
the wwwPDB requirements.. there were bitter arguments over accepting it from
many!
E
Peter Zwart wrote:
Hi Stephen,
R32
H32
R32 :H
Correct. These are all hexagonal setting. As far as I know, the
hexagonal setting of R32 (R32:H) is the first one that comes up in the
ITvA as is listed a R32. The rhombohedral/primitive setting of R32
(R32:R) comes second in the ITvA, I guess the first setting takes
precedence. H32 is a pdb/ccp4ism.
In my cctbx-skewed view, it looks like this:
R32 == R32:H (== H32; not supported by the cctbx)
R32:R is the primitive setting of R32:H
Appending the setting to the space group makes life easier (no
ambiguities) and you can do more funky stuff if one has the
stomach/need to do so [like "P212121 (a+b,a-b,c)" ].
HTHP
