On Sat, Feb 13, 2021, Nicholas Larsen wrote:
I hope this doesn't confuse the discussion, but my understanding was "UNK"
stood for "unknown" residue and this will cause errors.
UNK is a legitimate entry in the components.cif collection. It's name is
indeed "UNKNOWN", but it is of type
change if
you were using PDB format.
Phil Jeffrey
Princeton
From: CCP4 bulletin board on behalf of Nicholas Larsen
<5741fb55e4af-dmarc-requ...@jiscmail.ac.uk>
Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2021 8:24 PM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] B
the
> deposition date (June 2015), or if it's related to the missing residues
> between the UNK segment and the defined amino acids.
>
> Phil Jeffrey
> Princeton
> --
> *From:* CCP4 bulletin board on behalf of Tristan
> Croll
> *Sent:* Friday
: Friday, February 12, 2021 1:03 PM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: [ccp4bb] Bug in mmCIF handling of UNK residues?
Hi all,
If I open (as far as I can tell) the mmCIF for any structure in the wwPDB that
contains both defined amino acids and UNK in the same chain, then the UNK
section is treated
the UNK
segment and the defined amino acids.
Phil Jeffrey
Princeton
From: CCP4 bulletin board on behalf of Tristan Croll
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2021 1:03 PM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: [ccp4bb] Bug in mmCIF handling of UNK residues?
Hi all,
If I open
Hi all,
If I open (as far as I can tell) the mmCIF for any structure in the wwPDB that
contains both defined amino acids and UNK in the same chain, then the UNK
section is treated as covalently bonded to the flanking sequence. This appears
to be a bug in the mmCIF generation itself, not in the
