On 8 Jul 2011, at 19:13, Katherine Sippel wrote:
> I know that the PDB updated its validation server in May as described in
> their news link but it seemed to indicate an increase in output options
> rather than a change in criteria. Is anyone aware of what changes were made
> to the validatio
Ha. That is obviously it. I failed to account for Brownian motion in the pdb
file itself. Properly modeling this is really going to mess with my data to
parameter ratio.
Katherine
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 12:54 AM, James Stroud wrote:
> On Jul 8, 2011, at 11:13 AM, Katherine Sippel wrote:
>
> >
On Jul 8, 2011, at 11:13 AM, Katherine Sippel wrote:
> I was shocked to discover that the file with only one "questionable solvent"
> in April now has 173 of them.
One word: Diffusion.
James
Hi again,
I have an update. The nice people at the PDB have gotten in touch and they
think it might be a bug. They are looking into it.
Thank you for all the off-board replies and I hope you all have a wonderful
weekend.
Katherine
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Katherine Sippel wrote:
> Hi a
Hi all,
I am putting the finishing touches on a structure and as a good little
crystallographer I am running it through Molprobity and PDB validation to
make sure everything clears before deposition. Everything was looking
alright until I threw the file into the PDB validation server and suddenly
