On Wednesday 02 January 2008 10:17, mark Mayer wrote: > > Is there a consensus about which program / data base most accurately reports > Ramachandran > statistics? I believe that PROCHECK inaccurately flags outliers because the > data base was compiled > many years ago, and there are now many more high resolution structures. > Likewise I think I've heard > (no insults intended) that the Richardson library used by MOLPROBITY is a bit > too generous?
I am not aware of any grounds to doubt the Molprobity distributions. By "too generous", do you mean that the sigma levels corresponding to category boundaries are too high, or do you mean that the quality of structures used to generate the distribution tables was not sufficiently stringent, or what? > What are people using currently to report Ramachandran statistics in papers? Molprobity. -- Ethan A Merritt Courier Deliveries: 1959 NE Pacific Dept of Biochemistry Health Sciences Building University of Washington - Seattle WA 98195-7742
