Assessing quality of high-res refinement?

Flip Hoedemaeker fhoedem at oci.utoronto.ca
Thu Jan 8 11:17:51 EST 1998


On 8 Jan 1998, Darren Nickerson wrote:

> 
> Of course, thanks ;-) But is PROCHECK really suitable for data approaching
> atomic resolution? In broad terms it is, of course, but isn't it based on
> a library of structures of "at least 2.0 Angstroms"? Perhaps it includes its
> own bias which may not be appropriate to really high-res work?
> 
> -Darren
> 

OK, but what do you want to do? If you really have atomic resolution data 
you can release almost all distance and geometry retraints in your 
refinement. At that point you will be guided only by R and Rfree. If you 
want a PROCHECK-like program based only on atomic resolution data I think 
the database is still too small? Of course, I haven't been fortunate 
enough to have that kind of data myself....

Flip



	----------------------------------------------------------------
	| Tel: (416) 946-2000 EXT 5053,	Fax: (416) 946-6529		|
	| Ontario Cancer Institute, 610 University Avenue,		|  
	| Toronto Ont.	Canada M5G 2M9					|
	|								|
	| "Commonsense is nothing more than a deposit of prejudices	|
	|  laid down by the mind before you reach 18" - Albert Einstein |
	----------------------------------------------------------------
   





More information about the Xtal-log mailing list