B-factor has a meaning of confidence On 2026-01-26, but it is provided
on the on on the wrong scale, should be around 10000.0
ZBYSZEK Otwinowski
14:38, Paul Emsley wrote:
On 26/01/2026 12:45, Hughes, Jon wrote:
It occurs to me that the problem with misinterpretation of the
confidence in the B-factor column could be avoided if there was a
field in the mmCIF format to replace
“_atom_site.B_iso_or_equiv” with something like
“_atom_site.predicted_confidence";
FWIW... in my role of something of a conduit between users and the
wwPDB it has become apparent to me that this is by far the most
long-standing, desired, requested (and AFAICS) ignored request of
users.
Paul.
########################################################################
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/
########################################################################
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/
