Note, Molprobity has an option to use longer (neutron) X-H distances.
Pavel

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 11:46 AM, Tristan Croll <ti...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:

> I believe the reason for the discrepancy here is that MolProbity by
> default places the hydrogens according to the centroid of the electron
> cloud (most relevant to x-ray crystallographic data) rather than the
> nuclear position. In a polar bond like N-H the difference can be quite
> substantial.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tristan
>
>
>
> Tristan Croll
> Research Fellow
> Cambridge Institute for Medical Research
> University of Cambridge CB2 0XY
>
>
>
>
> On 28 Apr 2017, at 18:33, Bernhard Rupp <hofkristall...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Fellows of the Bond,
>
>
>
> when validating a QM refined homology model with Molprobity, I noticed
> various 8 sigma deviations in the carbon-hydrogen bond distances.
>
> Out of curiosity, I then used refmac to calculate riding Hs for the same
> model, and at least in one instance (N-H backbone) there are
>
> significant differences between Molprobity and Refmac H bond distances
> (differences to the QM distances in other
>
> instances I find interesting, but less relevant for us).
>
>
>
> The riding H vs Molprobity presumably should be consistent, because if we
> use them in VDW restraints but
>
> they differ from the validation target, systematic bias will occur. I have
> no feel how significant that effect
>
> might be – maybe someone more erudite can comment.
>
>
>
> Examples
>
>
>
> distance                  MP       REF     QM
>
> backbone N-H       0.86    1.01    1.00
>
> phenyl C-H             0.93    0.93    1.09
>
>
>
> Best, BR
>
>
>
> PS: If someone has accurate experimental values for CH distances I’d
> appreciate a link.
>
> No access to CSD.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> Bernhard Rupp
>
> Crystallographiae Vindicis Militum Ordo
>
> http://www.hofkristallamt.org/
>
> b...@hofkristallamt.org
>
> +1 925 209 7429 <(925)%20209-7429>
>
> +43 767 571 0536 <+43%207675%20710536>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> Many plausible ideas vanish
>
> at the presence of thought
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>

Reply via email to