Note that we discuss rmsZ values in the paper, not rmsd. This is done on purpose; rmsd values do not take the standard deviation of bond lengths into account. This makes it needlessly difficult to compare values.
Consider reporting rmsZ instead of rmsd. Cheers, Robbie Sent from my Windows Phone ________________________________ From: Randy Read Sent: 2013-01-29 23:08 To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] RMSD Citation Dear Peter, Shameless plug: you could do worse than to read the report of the X-ray Validation Task Force of the wwPDB (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3195755/), which includes citations to the original literature such as the Engh & Huber studies on bond lengths and angles, and their standard deviations. Best wishes, Randy Read ----- Randy J. Read Department of Haematology, University of Cambridge Cambridge Institute for Medical Research Tel: +44 1223 336500 Wellcome Trust/MRC Building Fax: +44 1223 336827 Hills Road E-mail: rj...@cam.ac.uk Cambridge CB2 0XY, U.K. www-structmed.cimr.cam.ac.uk On 29 Jan 2013, at 20:47, Peter Randolph wrote: > My advisor has told me that an acceptable range for publication is an RMSD > for bonds ~ 0.01 A and angles >2.0 degrees is acceptable for publication > (with a proper R and R-free). Does anyone know where these values came from > and if there a specific citation to go along with it? > Thanks, > Peter >
