Thanks for all responses,
Yes I'll keep my ligand in the protein section, and will add extra
information regarding the ligand/receptor. They actually asked for
separate b-factors during review, so I guess they'll be willing to see
it in the final table.
Jan
2014-02-18 11:39 UTC-05:00, herman.schreu...@sanofi.com
<herman.schreu...@sanofi.com>:
> If the ligand is a bona fide protein (more than a few amino acids and its
> own stable fold), I would include it under protein. However it is a matter
> of taste and, as Nat says, it will probably be dumped in the supplementary
> materials to be never looked at again.
> Herman
>
>
> Von: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] Im Auftrag von Nat
> Echols
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 18. Februar 2014 17:29
> An: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> Betreff: Re: [ccp4bb] Table in NSMB
>
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Jan van Agthoven
> <janc...@gmail.com<mailto:janc...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> I'm filling out my table for NSMB, about a structure of protein ligand
> bound to a receptor. They ask for 3 different lines regarding number
> of atoms & bfactor. 1) Protein 2) Ligand/Ion 3) Water.
> Does my protein ligand belong to Protein or Ligand/Ion?
>
> Why not list them each explicitly? In my experience the recommended table
> of crystallography statistics for most journals is just a suggestion, not a
> strict format. If you leave out information they might complain, but surely
> they won't object if you include additional details. (They usually just
> exile it to the unformatted supplementary materials anyway.)
> -Nat
>
