Assessing quality of high-res refinement?
dnicker at ermine.ox.ac.uk
Thu Jan 8 12:04:30 EST 1998
In article <Pine.SGI.3.91.980108111158.5144B-100000 at kali>,
Flip Hoedemaeker <fhoedem at oci.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>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?
>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....
I was trying to determine if the atomic resolution jocks had yet come
to any concensus on what one could expect in terms of bond-length and angle
deviations . . . I have found the following reference which begins to discuss
Dauter et. al, Current Opinion in Structural Biology 1997, 7:681-688
More information about the Xtal-log