HELP! Protein Graphics!! (yuck! this echoes even in bionet.software)

Barani barani at mace.cc.purdue.edu
Wed Feb 1 16:02:44 EST 1995


   ======================================================================
   >Article: 3569 of bionet.molbio.proteins
   >From: smb18 at mole.bio.cam.ac.uk (Simon Brocklehurst (Bioc))
   
   >have said, the technique is often much quicker than X-ray or NMR.  
   >Although I'd grant you the fact that if you're doing a structure by 
   >molecular replacement, and your data diffracts to 1 A, then you could 
   >knock it out in a weekend ;-)  But us poor NMR people are stuck working 
   
     'poor NMR people'? gee, I think they are the richest!!  :-)
   
      [couldnt help looking at my bank(ruptcy) account!]  :-(
   
   ===========================================================================
   >
   Article: 3586 of bionet.molbio.proteins
   
   >As any person knows, using X-ray information without the theoretical  
   >stereochemical information would result in a 'random' collection of  
   >points.
   
   Stereochemical information was not the contribution from modellers and 
   instead, most of them obtained from small molecular and inorganic crystals 
   by crystallography. In any case Crystallography is a SuperSet encompassing
   all the available knowledge; not just X-ray information.
   
   >>   May I take the opportunity to suggest a simple test to see if homology
   >>   .....
   
   >This is a good test of a usefulness of a model, but it is certainly not  
   >the only one.
   
   Obviously Gerard has been trying to suggest some SIMPLE test to a 
   relatively newcomer and never claimed it to be THE TEST. So, why
   keep on harping about it? 
   
   >Your view is probably a little too restrained. For example, a molecular  
   >.....
   >deal with them.
   
   In today's world if someone asks for a program to generate a 3D 
   structure from a sequence, then he needs to be cautioned. It surprises 
   me to see that homology modellers possess a fragile psychology that 
   makes them take offence at the slightest remark that was not intended 
   for slighting. 
   >
   >Let's not create a tug of war between crystallographers and modelers.  
   >After all, we modelers depend on crystallographers for raw data and could  
   >not do anything without them.
   
   ...er..I am getting scared of chemists, molecular biologists, computer
   scientists and physicists entering the newsgroup now...they might start 
   taking away the credit from us crystallographers!!  :-)
   
   >
   >Regards, Andrej
   
   Barani
   B146 Lilly Hall of Life Sciences
   Purdue University
   
   



More information about the Proteins mailing list