> the end result troubles me a little. if I understand you correctly, two > adjacent helices would be shown essentially as one "bent" > representation?
Actually, that isn't quite true. Let me explain. The shape I am using for a cartoon is a little *rocket* with a cap on it. The tip of the rocket would be in the center of the base of the next rocket. So it would continue to look like two helices. > this concerns me because it implies (visually) a bent helix, and it > isn't - it's two different helices. OK > the backbone must pass though some > sort of transition to get from one helix to another, even if that > transition is only a few atoms (say carbonyl of one residue to amine of > the next). Well, 1KYZ has it going directly from one helix to the next. Presumably the angle of the helix led them to believe that they were/are two separate helices butted together. > it is important to visually acknowledge that transition, in > my opinion. otherwise, students may assume that the regular hydrogen > bonding pattern of the helix (n to n+4) extends through the "bent" > region. which, if you look at the perpendicular helices in 1kyz, is > obviously not possible. I don't know what you mean by 'perpendicular helices'. Miguel ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials. Become an expert in LINUX or just sharpen your skills. Sign up for IBM's Free Linux Tutorials. Learn everything from the bash shell to sys admin. Click now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1278&alloc_id=3371&op=click _______________________________________________ Jmol-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jmol-users
