Perhaps this can be automated:
https://www.phenix-online.org/papers/wd5073_reprint.pdf
Software doesn't get tired or bored, and thus potentially can try more and
produce more plausible interretations. Then one can hire a number of people
of various expertise to choose "best" result according to t
It sounds a bit like this paper from a year ago:
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms12549
apart from the conclusion: here the point is that amateurs build
higher quality models than crystallographers.
On 20 November 2017 at 20:25, Shintaro Aibara wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> Apologies for the slight
; From: Shintaro Aibara
> Date: 20/11/2017 21:25 (GMT+01:00)
> To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> Subject: [ccp4bb] [Off-topic] Comparison of the same structure built by
> many people
>
> Dear All,
>
> Apologies for the slightly off-topic, but I was wondering if anybody knew
>
This one?http://scripts.iucr.org/cgi-bin/paper?SE0260
Mark J van RaaijCNB-CSICwwwuser.csic.es/~mjvanraaij
Original message From: Shintaro Aibara
Date: 20/11/2017 21:25 (GMT+01:00) To:
CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK Subject: [ccp4bb] [Off-topic] Comparison of the same
structure
Dear All,
Apologies for the slightly off-topic, but I was wondering if anybody knew
of a paper/textbook where a protein model was built by multiple people
(ranging from novice to experienced builders) and compared. I believe the
conclusion was that while the overall trace was broadly correct,
expe
