Indeed, as Diana points out:
PDB's own components.cif defines LIG as:
_chem_comp.id LIG
_chem_comp.name "3-PYRIDIN-4-YL-2,4-DIHYDRO-INDENO[1,2-.C.]PYRAZOLE"
_chem_comp.type NON-POLYMER
_chem_comp.pdbx_type HETAIN
_chem_comp.formula "C15 H11 N3"
So they probably should fix that. Also that chem_comp.name seems to be
associated with a variety of ligand IDs with different formulae and also
turns up as a synonym of others. Things seem to be a little wayward in
there.
Phil Jeffrey
Princeton
On 4/26/24 10:40 AM, Diana Tomchick wrote:
But I think that is a mistake, if you search for LIG in the PDB, it
brings up a definite ligand that has that 3-letter code.
Diana
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 26, 2024, at 8:04 AM, Deborah Harrus <dhar...@ebi.ac.uk> wrote:
Dear all,
Just to clarify, "LIG" is also a reserved code, so it's safe to use.
See https://www.wwpdb.org/news/news?year=2023#656f4404d78e004e766a96c6
Kind regards,
Deborah Harrus
PDBe
########################################################################
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/
