Hi Reza, If you think about it this way... Validation is making sure that the model makes sense, data make sense and model-to-data fit make sense, then the answer to your question is obvious: in your case you do not have experimental data (at least in a way we used to think of it) and so then of these three validation items you only have one, which, for example, means you don’t have to report things like R-factors or completeness in high-resolution shell.
Really, the geometry of an alpha helix does not depend on how you determined it: using X-rays or cryo-EM or something else! So, most (if not all) model validation tools still apply. Pavel On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 8:10 AM Reza Khayat <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > > Can anyone suggest how to validate a predicted structure? Something > similar to wwPDB validation without the need for refinement statistics. I > realize this is a strange question given that the geometry of the model is > anticipated to be fine if the structure was predicted by a server that > minimizes the geometry to improve its statistics. Nonetheless, the journal > has asked me for such a report. Thanks. > > > Best wishes, > > Reza > > > Reza Khayat, PhD > Associate Professor > City College of New York > Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry > New York, NY 10031 > > ------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link: > https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1 > ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1 This message was issued to members of www.jiscmail.ac.uk/CCP4BB, a mailing list hosted by www.jiscmail.ac.uk, terms & conditions are available at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/
