I fully agree. Unfortunately, the perfect model does not exist (at least not 
for protein crystal structures). It is like with Heisenbergs uncertainty 
principle. Either one has a complete model with a number of atoms having a 
coordinate uncertainty of 4-6 Å, or one has a model where the uncertainty of 
all atoms is below say 0.5 Å, but with a lot of truncated side chains with 
clearly contradict available biochemical evidence.
 
Cheers,
Herman


________________________________

        From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of 
Gregory Bowman
        Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 4:17 PM
        To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
        Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] REFMAC5 residues with bad geometry
        
        
        But what about the issue of resolution? As was previously pointed out, 
at say 3.2 Å resolution, many side chains will fail to fit, but it doesn't seem 
appropriate to trim them all down. The users need to also be aware of the 
quality/resolution of the structures that they are looking at.  

        Greg
        


        On Mar 26, 2012, at 9:28 AM, Ed Pozharski wrote:


                I agree with Eleanor 100%...
                
                In my biased opinion, only the atoms supported by electron 
density
                should be included in deposited models.  To satisfy the "but 
this will
                mess up the electrostatic potential coloring" argument (a valid 
one, of
                course), the "projected model" can be deposited alongside which 
must be
                clearly advertised as the unconstrained interpretation by the
                structure's author.
                
                Cheers,
                
                Ed.
                
                On Sun, 2012-03-25 at 08:36 +0100, Eleanor Dodson wrote:
                

                        As Garib says - an atom with occupancy 0.00 is treated 
as a marker -
                        

                        useful 
                        

                        for coot - but is not included in any X-ray refinement 
at all.. Maybe
                        

                        it 
                        

                        would be more aesthetic to maintain geometry but as 
crystallographers
                        

                        I 
                        

                        think we should be interested in the fit of model to 
experiment -
                        

                        right? - 
                        

                        and not in reporting a pseudo fit related to geometric 
parameters
                        

                        only.. 
                        

                -- 
                Oh, suddenly throwing a giraffe into a volcano to make water is 
crazy?
                                                               Julian, King of 
Lemurs
                


        
        
        
        --
        Department of Biophysics
        Johns Hopkins University
        302 Jenkins Hall
        3400 N. Charles St.
        Baltimore, MD 21218
        Phone: (410) 516-7850 (office)
        Phone: (410) 516-3476 (lab)
        gdbow...@jhu.edu
        http://www.jhu.edu/bowmanlab


Reply via email to