Hi, Seems not officially retracted from Nature either. On the paper's web page, there was only a line in small font read like this:
There is a Brief Communications Arising (9 August 2007) associated with this document. It took me more than half an hour to find this line. I normally won't read any line above the title. Now it proves to be a bad habit. I am still trying to find this line in the PDF. Zhijie From: Michael Hadders Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 2:57 AM To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Boveral in SFCheck Hi, 2HR0???? I would stay far away from that one! It is a made up model, not based on any real data. Unfortunately, for reasons unclear to me, this structure has still not been retracted from the PDB. This B factor could just be a figment of the senior authors imagination.... https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0912&L=CCP4BB&D=0&P=88327 Regards, Michael On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 3:34 AM, Eric Williams <ericwilli...@pobox.com> wrote: Please pardon me if this is a dumb question with an obvious answer... I'm parsing SFCheck's plain text output as part of my dissertation, and I'm having trouble identifying one of the values. There are three overall B-factor values reported, one based on the Patterson origin peak, one based on the Wilson plot, and one that remains a mystery to me. Here's the relevant line (from 2HR0) with some lines before and after for context: R_stand(I) = <sig(I)>/<I> : 0.397 Number of acceptable reflections: 194123 for resolution : 45.33 - 2.26 Optical Resolution: 1.80 Boveral,Effres,Padd: 40.751 2.032 777.887 Expected Optical Resolution for complete data set: 1.80 / Optical resolution - expected minimal distance between two resolved peaks in the electron density map./ Resmax_used(opt): 2.26 The mystery value is Boveral. I've found no explanation for it in either the SFCheck manual or the original journal article. Perhaps I'm missing something obvious, but someone would really make my day if they could point me in the right direction. Thanks! :) Eric
