Tommi, I have found that TEXTAL is very good at tracing maps of less than stellar quality. It is optimized for low resolution maps, which is where, in my experience, RESOLVE has difficulty. Is is available as a stand-alone program or as part of the PHENIX package.
See Gopal, K., McKee, E., Romo, T., Pai, R., Smith, J., Sacchettini, J. & Ioerger, T. (2007). Bioinformatics 23, 375-377. Mark On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 16:24 +0300, Tommi Kajander wrote: > Hi, > i would be interested in hearing about people's preferences on programs > for doign auto-tracing of protein chains (with not so great maps), so far > my feeling has been nothing is at least much better than resolve in doing > this. but i was wondering if people would care to share examples on cases > where there was some difference to what you started with... > ..of course one can always complete and correct by hand but when you are > doing this with phasing iteratively it would be interesting to hear opinions.. > thanks, > tommi > > Best Regards, Mark -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Mark A. White, Ph.D. Tel: Assistant Professor, Sealy Center for (409) 747-4747 Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics Fax: Basic Science Building, Room 660C (409) 747-4745 University of Texas Medical Branch email: Galveston, TX 77555-0647 mailto://[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://xray.utmb.edu http://xray.utmb.edu/~white -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
