***  For details on how to be removed from this list visit the  ***
***          CCP4 home page http://www.ccp4.ac.uk         ***



On the whole I agree that in dealing with problems at low resolution and/or 
high R-factor, CNS has its advantages, but my list of plus points would be 
rather shorter than yours - basically just the torsion angle dynamics / 
simulated annealing option.

In our experience Refmac's radius of convergence is generally better than that 
of CNS, at least when using conventional co-ordinate based refinement.  This 
seems to be in part related to CNS's tight default stereochemistry which I see 
as a minus point in the context of initial refinement - as others have pointed 
out tight restraints are _not_ what you want in the initial stages, they really 
slow things down and can mean that you don't reach the minimum in finite time.  
Isn't Refmac's minimisation more aggressive at least in part because it's not 
slowed down by over-tight restraints (at least if you set the weight correctly)?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'ability to use harmonic restraints' - aren't 
geometric restraints harmonic in all refinement programs?  Atomic B-factor 
refinement in Refmac can be turned off easily with the REFI BREF OVER option, 
and I can't think of any circumstances where I would want to refine only B 
factors (after all they're pretty meaningless if the atoms are not in the right 
positions!).

-- Ian


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 
> Behalf Of Anthony Duff
> Sent: 06 December 2005 22:33
> To: [email protected]; Qun Wan
> Subject: Re: [ccp4bb]: question about alternate residues
> 
> In my opinion...
> 
> CNS seems superior for low resolution structures (resolution 
> worse than 3A) and early refinement (R worse than 30%). Reasons: 
> 
> *     good radius of convergence, 
> *     tight default stereochemistry, 
> *     very easy to use with a simple model 
> *     simulated annealing 
> *     ability to refine part only of the model 
> *     ability to use harmonic restraints, 
> *     ability to not refine B-factors, 
> *     ability to only refine B-factors  
> 
> Otherwise REFMAC is superior: 
> 
> *     more aggressive minimisation algorithm. 
> *     very easy to use alternate conformers 
> *     Ongoing development 
> *     excellent community support for when things get tricky 
> (ccp4bb)  
> 
> I suggest that the best transition point is where you need to 
> model alternate conformers.  Once you have your first 
> alternate conformer, abandon CNS and use REFMAC from that 
> point forward.
> 
> 
> Anthony
> 
> 
> At 08:57 AM 7/12/2005, you wrote:
> 
> 
>       ***  For details on how to be removed from this list 
> visit the  ***
>       ***          CCP4 home page http://www.ccp4.ac.uk       
>  <http://www.ccp4.ac.uk        /> ***
>       
>       
>       Dear all,
>       My model (total 354 residues) has 13 residues which 
> have alternate conformations. when I generate the alternate 
> conformation with alternate.inp in CNS, the program does not 
> give me the AC conformers because the atom selection only 
> allows for 265 letter. However, all these residue selection 
> will more than 264 strings. Does any one know how to the 
> alternates in CNS?
>       
>       
>       DEFINE>{========================== atom selection 
> ===========================}
>        DEFINE>
>        DEFINE>{* select atoms to have multiple conformations *}
>        %COPYST-ERR: ST2MAX too small. Check input file.
>                  Offending string:"{===>} atom_select=((segid 
> A and residue 12) or (segid A and residue 169) or (segid A 
> and residue 175) or (segid A and residue 172) or (segid A and 
> residue 37) or (segid A and residue 222) or (segid A and 
> residue 126) or (segid A and residue 51) or (segid A and re "
>                       with length=  265
>                  Max allowed length of string=  264
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Anthony Duff
> Postdoctoral Fellow
> School of Molecular and Microbial Biosciences Biochemistry 
> Building, G08 University of Sydney, NSW 2006 Australia
> Phone. 61-2-9351-3907   Fax. 61-2-9351-4726 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 

Disclaimer

This communication is confidential and may contain privileged information 
intended solely for the named addressee(s). It may not be used or disclosed 
except for the purpose for which it has been sent. If you are not the intended 
recipient you must not review, use, disclose, copy, distribute or take any 
action in reliance upon it. If you have received this communication in error, 
please notify Astex Therapeutics Ltd by emailing [EMAIL PROTECTED] and destroy 
all copies of the message and any attached documents. 



Astex Therapeutics Ltd monitors, controls and protects all its messaging 
traffic in compliance with its corporate email policy. The Company accepts no 
liability or responsibility for any onward transmission or use of emails and 
attachments having left the Astex Therapeutics domain.  Unless expressly 
stated, opinions in this message are those of the individual sender and not of 
Astex Therapeutics Ltd. The recipient should check this email and any 
attachments for the presence of computer viruses. Astex Therapeutics Ltd 
accepts no liability for damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email. 
E-mail is susceptible to data corruption, interception, unauthorized amendment, 
and tampering, Astex Therapeutics Ltd only send and receive e-mails on the 
basis that the Company is not liable for any such alteration or any 
consequences thereof.



Reply via email to