Glad you brought it up Katherine. Debasish
From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Katherine Sippel Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 2:26 PM To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK Subject: [ccp4bb] New PDB validation reports Hi all, I've been playing with the new PDB validation service. It is very pretty and kudos to all the hard work that has clearly gone into it. I did notice however that the way the information is presented, there seems to be a bias towards truncating side chains versus modeling them with higher b-factors. The disordered side chains have higher RSRZs (rightfully so), but there doesn't seem to be any indicator for missing atoms. As a results I can make my validation report "prettier" by truncating versus modeling with high Bs. I don't want to kick an ant pile here, but given this rather significant difference in quality reporting, I was wondering if the community had reached a consensus on this issue that I had missed. Cheers, Katherine -- "Nil illegitimo carborundum" - Didactylos
