Yes that works. I need to stop following instructions…. Thx, BR
From: Robbie Joosten [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Robbie Joosten Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 13:38 To: Bernhard Rupp <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: RE: [ccp4bb] BMA NAG FUC Hi Bernhard, We had the same problem recently and it looks like a bug. The workaround is to give it an alternative name the same as the name it should have. So FUC your FUC etc 😉 Cheers, Robbie Sent from my Windows 10 phone Van: Bernhard Rupp <mailto:[email protected]> Verzonden: vrijdag 26 mei 2017 12:56 Aan: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Onderwerp: [ccp4bb] BMA NAG FUC Hi Fellows, upon updating a deposition of a glycosylated model, I see no longer the option in the ligand page to override the as incorrect flagged monomer assignments BMA NAG FUC etc. for glycan components. Instead, a mandatory mismatch correction is demanded. The suggestion of alternate identifiers, which was present before is also missing, together with the override option). The validation still works fine. Is this a new ‘feature’ or am I ignorant of a new policy? In principle I agree that using different monomer names for free monomer vs bound ones could be useful – a residue is not a free amino acid, and data miners have no easy means to distinguish such. The same argument can be made for sugars as bona fide ligands vs component of a glycan. Best, BR ------------------------------------------------------ Bernhard Rupp CVMO <http://www.hofkristallamt.org/> http://www.hofkristallamt.org/ <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] +1 925 209 7429 +43 676 571 0536 ------------------------------------------------------ Many plausible ideas vanish at the presence of thought ------------------------------------------------------
