On Tue, 2011-05-03 at 18:06 +0100, Ian Tickle wrote:
> So Ed, it's not just
> relevant to the "Wu&Kabat numbering for antibodies".
Obviously, it was meant to be an example of use, not the only example.
> The idea that
> one would _not_ use consistent numbering (and therefore insertion
> codes) across species (viral, fungal, plant and animal so there is
> huge sequence variability with insertions & deletions everywhere),
> when working with these structures is frankly ludicrous.
Personally I don't care one way or the other, but it may be pointed out
that if D25 is actually number 37 in a homologous protein, it should be
D37. Just as acknowledgement of the (somewhat purist) point of view
that the residue number should denote its linear distance from the
N-terminus.
It's a little different with antibodies, of course, as each individual
one is not an entirely inherited gene.
Cheers,
Ed.
--
"Hurry up before we all come back to our senses!"
Julian, King of Lemurs
