Re: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

[Sanishvili, Ruslan]

Hi Bernhard,

While I do not disagree with anything you have said, there is an error in your 
computation. Your results are based on the assumption of a 40-hour work week 
and one-month vacation in a year.

I don't know about now but back then Russian scientists did not work like that. 
So, the final number of 1.5 ppr/hr realistically would be closer to 1 ppr/hr.

Cheers,

Nukri


Ruslan Sanishvili (Nukri), Ph.D.
Macromolecular Crystallographer
GM/CA@APS
X-ray Science Division, ANL
9700 S. Cass Ave.
Lemont, IL 60439

Tel: (630)252-0665
Fax: (630)252-0667
rsanishv...@anl.gov




From: CCP4 bulletin board  on behalf of Bernhard Rupp 

Sent: Wednesday, July 4, 2018 1:30 PM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press


I was just fascinated by the math: 800 x 3 = 2400, and given a

work year of 1600 hrs this makes for 1.5 papers per hr to review…



I don’t remember a reference to anyone specific - YS had only about 2000 papers 
–

so maybe there are/were even more prolific candidates 😉



Best, BR



From: George Sheldrick 
Sent: Wednesday, July 4, 2018 16:17
To: b...@hofkristallamt.org; ccp4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press



Dear Bernhard,

I agree with you sentiments, but was wondering which 'poor Russian small 
molecule crystallographer' you had in mind?

Yuri Strutchkov died in 1995. He was an excellent crystallographer but with an 
efficient team and good connections.

I can't really complain, all the fake Chinese structures in Acta E cited SHELX 
for their refinement.

Best wishes, George



On 04.07.2018 13:54, Bernhard Rupp wrote:

Yes, there is a problem in general with these ‘get rich quick with user data’

facebookoid sites. Publon seems to be another one and I had what can be 
charitably described

as a pretty intense exchange with the dude running it. Nothing can be free (a 
concept occasionally alien

to the purist academic) and you just pay with whatever data that will be 
exploited as a business model.

That is fine as long as the model is transparent.



In response to an earlier post in this thread, complaining about review 
overload is perilous if you

expect to get your own stuff reviewed. If you publish 10 papers a year, on 
grounds of reciprocity you

should expect to review about 30. Almost one a week sans holidays…imagine the 
poor Russian small molecule

crystallographers on 800 papers a year…nothing beats monopolizing a resource 
(diffractometer etc…).

So, millennials, be thankful for the democratization of crystallography, 
compliment of the synchrotron

facilities and their diligent operators confined to the subterranean dungeons 
of beam line hell.



.



Best, BR



PS: Ad Elsevier: In an apparent acute attack of generosity, the Cell Press 
stuff can be shared

through links for 50 days.

https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1XK9D3SNvbqr-6

I am responsible only for pushing the content, not for what happens with your 
data….

(at a second thought, don’t crystallographers also practically live to collect 
data?)



“To help you access and share this work, we have created a Share Link – a 
personalized URL providing 50 days' free access to your article. Anyone 
clicking on this link before August 22, 2018 will be taken directly to the 
final version of your article on ScienceDirect. No sign up, registration or 
fees are required – they can simply click and read”



From: CCP4 bulletin board  
On Behalf Of Patrick Shaw Stewart
Sent: Wednesday, July 4, 2018 12:59
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press





Bernhard, did you know that Researchgate is a controversial organization?  They 
have been criticised for encouraging users to upload copyrighted material, see 
below.  Their business model also seems to involve charging a high fee to spam 
their users - we tried it once but decided we were just annoying the scientists 
who happened to get our message.(Although I agree with you that 10-yr-old 
articles are less valuable than recent ones.)



An interesting model for scientific publishing is the journal Biology Direct.  
Reviewers' names and reports are published along with the article, and it's up 
to the authors to amend their article if they agree with any criticisms.  All 
you need is three reports for publication  I sent the journal what I believed 
to be a ground-breaking review explaining why we get more colds in winter than 
summer (later published in Medical Hypotheses).  I was disappointed that I only 
got one reviewer to support my article by writing a report.  But I felt that 
the format of the journal would have been be very helpful for a controversial 
topic.  Link below.



Patrick



__


ResearchGate   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ResearchGate#Criticisms

In September 2017, lawyers representing the International Association of 
Scientific, Technical, and Medical Publisher

Re: [ccp4bb] disulfate bond ?

[Pavel Afonine]

More re disulfide bonds:
http://www.phenix-online.org/newsletter/CCN_2015_01.pdf#page=13

Pavel

On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 11:26 PM, 张士军 <21620150150...@stu.xmu.edu.cn> wrote:

> Hi all
>
> I got a structure which has COA in it, and the SH in the tail of COA
> is very close to the SH side chain of Cys in the structure. I don't know
> whether it is disulfate bond or not? I remember they
> should link together if they are disulfate bond,am I right?
>  so what could this be? Thanks a lot!!!
>
> best regards
>
> shijun
>
>
>
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1
>



To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1

Re: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

[Bernhard Rupp]

I was just fascinated by the math: 800 x 3 = 2400, and given a 

work year of 1600 hrs this makes for 1.5 papers per hr to review…

 

I don’t remember a reference to anyone specific - YS had only about 2000 papers 
– 

so maybe there are/were even more prolific candidates 😉

 

Best, BR

 

From: George Sheldrick  
Sent: Wednesday, July 4, 2018 16:17
To: b...@hofkristallamt.org; ccp4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

 

Dear Bernhard,

I agree with you sentiments, but was wondering which 'poor Russian small 
molecule crystallographer' you had in mind?

Yuri Strutchkov died in 1995. He was an excellent crystallographer but with an 
efficient team and good connections.

I can't really complain, all the fake Chinese structures in Acta E cited SHELX 
for their refinement.

Best wishes, George

 

On 04.07.2018 13:54, Bernhard Rupp wrote:

Yes, there is a problem in general with these ‘get rich quick with user data’ 

facebookoid sites. Publon seems to be another one and I had what can be 
charitably described 

as a pretty intense exchange with the dude running it. Nothing can be free (a 
concept occasionally alien 

to the purist academic) and you just pay with whatever data that will be 
exploited as a business model.

That is fine as long as the model is transparent. 

 

In response to an earlier post in this thread, complaining about review 
overload is perilous if you 

expect to get your own stuff reviewed. If you publish 10 papers a year, on 
grounds of reciprocity you 

should expect to review about 30. Almost one a week sans holidays…imagine the 
poor Russian small molecule 

crystallographers on 800 papers a year…nothing beats monopolizing a resource 
(diffractometer etc…).

So, millennials, be thankful for the democratization of crystallography, 
compliment of the synchrotron

facilities and their diligent operators confined to the subterranean dungeons 
of beam line hell. 

 

.

 

Best, BR

 

PS: Ad Elsevier: In an apparent acute attack of generosity, the Cell Press 
stuff can be shared

through links for 50 days. 

https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1XK9D3SNvbqr-6

I am responsible only for pushing the content, not for what happens with your 
data…. 

(at a second thought, don’t crystallographers also practically live to collect 
data?)

 

“To help you access and share this work, we have created a Share Link – a 
personalized URL providing 50 days' free access to your article. Anyone 
clicking on this link before August 22, 2018 will be taken directly to the 
final version of your article on ScienceDirect. No sign up, registration or 
fees are required – they can simply click and read”

 

From: CCP4 bulletin board   
 On Behalf Of Patrick Shaw Stewart
Sent: Wednesday, July 4, 2018 12:59
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK  
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

 

 

Bernhard, did you know that Researchgate is a controversial organization?  They 
have been criticised for encouraging users to upload copyrighted material, see 
below.  Their business model also seems to involve charging a high fee to spam 
their users - we tried it once but decided we were just annoying the scientists 
who happened to get our message.(Although I agree with you that 10-yr-old 
articles are less valuable than recent ones.) 

 

An interesting model for scientific publishing is the journal Biology Direct.  
Reviewers' names and reports are published along with the article, and it's up 
to the authors to amend their article if they agree with any criticisms.  All 
you need is three reports for publication  I sent the journal what I believed 
to be a ground-breaking review explaining why we get more colds in winter than 
summer (later published in Medical Hypotheses).  I was disappointed that I only 
got one reviewer to support my article by writing a report.  But I felt that 
the format of the journal would have been be very helpful for a controversial 
topic.  Link below.

 

Patrick

 

__



ResearchGate   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ResearchGate#Criticisms

In September 2017, lawyers representing the International Association of 
Scientific, Technical, and Medical Publishers (STM) sent a letter to 
ResearchGate threatening legal action against them for copyright infringement 
and demanding them to alter their handling of uploaded articles to include 
pre-release checking for copyright violations and "Specifically, [for 
ResearchGate to] end its extraction of content from hosted articles and the 
modification of any hosted content, including any and all metadata. It would 
also mean an end to Researchgate's own copying and downloading of published 
journal article content and the creation of internal databases of 
articles."[40][41][42] This was followed by an announcement that takedown 
requests are to be issued to ResearchGate for copyright infringement relating 
to millions of articles.

 

 


Biology DIre

Re: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

[George Sheldrick]

Dear Bernhard,

I agree with you sentiments, but was wondering which 'poor Russian small 
molecule crystallographer' you had in mind?


Yuri Strutchkov died in 1995. He was an excellent crystallographer but 
with an efficient team and good connections.


I can't really complain, all the fake Chinese structures in Acta E cited 
SHELX for their refinement.


Best wishes, George


On 04.07.2018 13:54, Bernhard Rupp wrote:


Yes, there is a problem in general with these ‘get rich quick with 
user data’


facebookoid sites. Publon seems to be another one and I had what can 
be charitably described


as a pretty intense exchange with the dude running it. Nothing can be 
free (a concept occasionally alien


to the purist academic) and you just pay with whatever data that will 
be exploited as a business model.


That is fine as long as the model is transparent.

In response to an earlier post in this thread, complaining about 
review overload is perilous if you


expect to get your own stuff reviewed. If you publish 10 papers a 
year, on grounds of reciprocity you


should expect to review about 30. Almost one a week sans 
holidays…imagine the poor Russian small molecule


crystallographers on 800 papers a year…nothing beats monopolizing a 
resource (diffractometer etc…).


So, millennials, be thankful for the democratization of 
crystallography, compliment of the synchrotron


facilities and their diligent operators confined to the subterranean 
dungeons of beam line hell.


.

Best, BR

PS: Ad Elsevier: In an apparent acute attack of generosity, the Cell 
Press stuff can be shared


through links for 50 days.

https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1XK9D3SNvbqr-6

I am responsible only for pushing the content, not for what happens 
with your data….


(at a second thought, don’t crystallographers also practically live to 
collect data?)


“To help you access and share this work, we have created a Share Link 
– a personalized URL providing *50 days' free access* to your article. 
Anyone clicking on this link before August 22, 2018 will be taken 
directly to the final version of your article on ScienceDirect. No 
sign up, registration or fees are required – they can simply click and 
read”


*From:* CCP4 bulletin board  *On Behalf Of 
*Patrick Shaw Stewart

*Sent:* Wednesday, July 4, 2018 12:59
*To:* CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
*Subject:* Re: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

Bernhard, did you know that Researchgate is a controversial 
organization?  They have been criticised for encouraging users to 
upload copyrighted material, see below.  Their business model also 
seems to involve charging a high fee to spam their users - we tried it 
once but decided we were just annoying the scientists who happened to 
get our message.  (Although I agree with you that 10-yr-old articles 
are less valuable than recent ones.)


An interesting model for scientific publishing is the journal/Biology 
Direct/. Reviewers' names and reports are published along with the 
article, and it's up to the authors to amend their article if they 
agree with any criticisms.  All you need is three reports for 
publication  I sent the journal what I believed to be a 
ground-breaking review explaining why we get more colds in winter than 
summer (later published in /Medical Hypotheses/).  I was disappointed 
that I only got one reviewer to support my article by writing a 
report.  But I felt that the format of the journal would have been be 
very helpful for a controversial topic.  Link below.


Patrick

__



/ResearchGate /https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ResearchGate#Criticisms

In September 2017, lawyers representing the International
Association of Scientific, Technical, and Medical Publishers (STM)
sent a letter to ResearchGate threatening legal action against
them for copyright infringement and demanding them to alter their
handling of uploaded articles to include pre-release checking for
copyright violations and "Specifically, [for ResearchGate to] end
its extraction of content from hosted articles and the
modification of any hosted content, including any and all
metadata. It would also mean an end to Researchgate's own copying
and downloading of published journal article content and the
creation of internal databases of articles."[40][41][42] This was
followed by an announcement that takedown requests are to be
issued to ResearchGate for copyright infringement relating to
millions of articles.


/Biology DIrect/:

https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/about/how-it-works

/My Article : ) /

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030698771500417X
  (or ask me for PDF)



/Criticism of Elsevier pricing. 
/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsevier#Pricing


In the 21st century, the subscription rates charged by the company
for its journals have been criticized; some very large journals
(with more than 5,000 articles) charge subscription prices as high

Re: [ccp4bb] disulfate bond ?

[Artem Evdokimov]

It seems that your CoA is one carbon out of reference. You have spotty
difference density over the ligand. Shift it left by one carbon bond and
redune to see if density fits better.

Artem

On Wed, Jul 4, 2018, 02:26 张士军 <21620150150...@stu.xmu.edu.cn> wrote:

> Hi all
>
> I got a structure which has COA in it, and the SH in the tail of COA
> is very close to the SH side chain of Cys in the structure. I don't know
> whether it is disulfate bond or not? I remember they should link together if 
> they are disulfate bond,am I right? so what could this be? Thanks a lot!!!
>
>
> best regards
>
> shijun
>
>
>
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1
>



To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1

Re: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

[Bernhard Rupp]

Yes, there is a problem in general with these ‘get rich quick with user data’ 

facebookoid sites. Publon seems to be another one and I had what can be 
charitably described 

as a pretty intense exchange with the dude running it. Nothing can be free (a 
concept occasionally alien 

to the purist academic) and you just pay with whatever data that will be 
exploited as a business model.

That is fine as long as the model is transparent. 

 

In response to an earlier post in this thread, complaining about review 
overload is perilous if you 

expect to get your own stuff reviewed. If you publish 10 papers a year, on 
grounds of reciprocity you 

should expect to review about 30. Almost one a week sans holidays…imagine the 
poor Russian small molecule 

crystallographers on 800 papers a year…nothing beats monopolizing a resource 
(diffractometer etc…).

So, millennials, be thankful for the democratization of crystallography, 
compliment of the synchrotron

facilities and their diligent operators confined to the subterranean dungeons 
of beam line hell. 

 

.

 

Best, BR

 

PS: Ad Elsevier: In an apparent acute attack of generosity, the Cell Press 
stuff can be shared

through links for 50 days. 

https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1XK9D3SNvbqr-6

I am responsible only for pushing the content, not for what happens with your 
data…. 

(at a second thought, don’t crystallographers also practically live to collect 
data?)

 

“To help you access and share this work, we have created a Share Link – a 
personalized URL providing 50 days' free access to your article. Anyone 
clicking on this link before August 22, 2018 will be taken directly to the 
final version of your article on ScienceDirect. No sign up, registration or 
fees are required – they can simply click and read”

 

From: CCP4 bulletin board  On Behalf Of Patrick Shaw 
Stewart
Sent: Wednesday, July 4, 2018 12:59
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

 

 

Bernhard, did you know that Researchgate is a controversial organization?  They 
have been criticised for encouraging users to upload copyrighted material, see 
below.  Their business model also seems to involve charging a high fee to spam 
their users - we tried it once but decided we were just annoying the scientists 
who happened to get our message.(Although I agree with you that 10-yr-old 
articles are less valuable than recent ones.) 

 

An interesting model for scientific publishing is the journal Biology Direct.  
Reviewers' names and reports are published along with the article, and it's up 
to the authors to amend their article if they agree with any criticisms.  All 
you need is three reports for publication  I sent the journal what I believed 
to be a ground-breaking review explaining why we get more colds in winter than 
summer (later published in Medical Hypotheses).  I was disappointed that I only 
got one reviewer to support my article by writing a report.  But I felt that 
the format of the journal would have been be very helpful for a controversial 
topic.  Link below.

 

Patrick

 

__



ResearchGate   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ResearchGate#Criticisms

In September 2017, lawyers representing the International Association of 
Scientific, Technical, and Medical Publishers (STM) sent a letter to 
ResearchGate threatening legal action against them for copyright infringement 
and demanding them to alter their handling of uploaded articles to include 
pre-release checking for copyright violations and "Specifically, [for 
ResearchGate to] end its extraction of content from hosted articles and the 
modification of any hosted content, including any and all metadata. It would 
also mean an end to Researchgate's own copying and downloading of published 
journal article content and the creation of internal databases of 
articles."[40][41][42] This was followed by an announcement that takedown 
requests are to be issued to ResearchGate for copyright infringement relating 
to millions of articles.

 

 


Biology DIrect:   

 

https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/about/how-it-works

 

 

 

My Article : )   

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030698771500417X(or ask 
me for PDF)

 



Criticism of Elsevier pricing.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsevier#Pricing

 

In the 21st century, the subscription rates charged by the company for its 
journals have been criticized; some very large journals (with more than 5,000 
articles) charge subscription prices as high as £9,634, far above average,[23] 
and many British universities pay more than a million pounds to Elsevier 
annually.[24] The company has been criticized not only by advocates of a switch 
to the open-access publication model, but also by universities whose library 
budgets make it difficult for them to afford current journal prices.

For example, a resolution by Stanford University's senate singled out 
Elsevier's journals as being "disproportionately 

Re: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

[Patrick Shaw Stewart]

Bernhard, did you know that Researchgate is a controversial organization?
They have been criticised for encouraging users to upload copyrighted
material, see below.  Their business model also seems to involve charging a
high fee to spam their users - we tried it once but decided we were just
annoying the scientists who happened to get our message.(Although I
agree with you that 10-yr-old articles are less valuable than recent ones.)

An interesting model for scientific publishing is the journal* Biology
Direct*.  Reviewers' names and reports are published along with the
article, and it's up to the authors to amend their article if they agree
with any criticisms.  All you need is three reports for publication  I sent
the journal what I believed to be a ground-breaking review explaining why
we get more colds in winter than summer (later published in *Medical
Hypotheses*).  I was disappointed that I only got one reviewer to support
my article by writing a report.  But I felt that the format of the journal
would have been be very helpful for a controversial topic.  Link below.

Patrick

__


*ResearchGate   *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ResearchGate#Criticisms

In September 2017, lawyers representing the International Association of
Scientific, Technical, and Medical Publishers (STM) sent a letter to
ResearchGate threatening legal action against them for copyright
infringement and demanding them to alter their handling of uploaded
articles to include pre-release checking for copyright violations and
"Specifically, [for ResearchGate to] end its extraction of content from
hosted articles and the modification of any hosted content, including any
and all metadata. It would also mean an end to Researchgate's own copying
and downloading of published journal article content and the creation of
internal databases of articles."[40][41][42] This was followed by an
announcement that takedown requests are to be issued to ResearchGate for
copyright infringement relating to millions of articles.




*Biology DIrect*:

https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/about/how-it-works




*My Article : )   *

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030698771500417X(or
ask me for PDF)




*Criticism of Elsevier pricing.   *
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsevier#Pricing


In the 21st century, the subscription rates charged by the company for its
journals have been criticized; some very large journals (with more than
5,000 articles) charge subscription prices as high as £9,634, far above
average,[23] and many British universities pay more than a million pounds
to Elsevier annually.[24] The company has been criticized not only by
advocates of a switch to the open-access publication model, but also by
universities whose library budgets make it difficult for them to afford
current journal prices.

For example, a resolution by Stanford University's senate singled out
Elsevier's journals as being "disproportionately expensive compared to
their educational and research value", which librarians should consider
dropping, and encouraged its faculty "not tocontribute articles or
editorial or review efforts to publishers and journals that engage in
exploitive or exorbitant pricing".[25] Similar guidelines and criticism of
Elsevier's pricing policies have been passed by the University of
California, Harvard University, and Duke University.[26]In July 2015, the
Association of Universities in the Netherlands (VSNU) announced a plan to
start boycotting Elsevier, which refused to negotiate on any Open Access
 policy for Dutch universities.
[27]  In December 2016,
 Nature Publishing Group
reported that
academics in Germany, Peru and Taiwan are to lose access to Elsevier
journals as negotiations had broken down with the publisher.[28]


A complaint about Elsevier/RELX was made to the Competition and Markets
Authority .
[29] 









On 2 July 2018 at 08:01, George Sheldrick  wrote:

> Since neither I nor my university can afford Elsevier journals, I have no
> access to papers published in them. In view of their excessive profits, for
> some years I have not submitted papers to them and have declined all
> requests to referee for them. If everyone did that, they might reconsider
> their approach. I am not an Apple fan either - I use a more reasonably
> priced native Linux laptop - but have to give Apple credit for innovation.
>
> George
>
>
> On 07/01/2018 06:57 PM, Patrick Loll wrote:
>
>
> I think what we should do is not publish in journal families where the
> profit is above 10 per cent. Elsevier is the place to start as their profit
> margins are like those of Apple, and of competition there is none.

Re: [ccp4bb] disulfate bond ?

[Ian Tickle]

Indeed: http://www.chemspider.com/Chemical-Structure.154712.html

-- Ian

On Wed, 4 Jul 2018 at 11:45, CAVAZZA Christine 202795 <
christine.cava...@cea.fr> wrote:

> Yes, but one of the S atoms is not well positioned in the electron
> density. And it is a disulfide bond (S-S) and not a disulfate bond.
>
>
>
> Christine
>
>
>
> *De :* CCP4 bulletin board  *De la part de*
> Eleanor Dodson
> *Envoyé :* mercredi 4 juillet 2018 12:18
> *À :* CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> *Objet :* Re: [ccp4bb] disulfate bond ?
>
>
>
> Hmm - the "S" atoms look too close - S=S bond ~ 2A
>
> Eleanor
>
>
>
> On 4 July 2018 at 07:26, 张士军 <21620150150...@stu.xmu.edu.cn> wrote:
>
> Hi all
>
> I got a structure which has COA in it, and the SH in the tail of COA
> is very close to the SH side chain of Cys in the structure. I don't know
> whether it is disulfate bond or not? I remember they should link together if 
> they are disulfate bond,am I right? so what could this be? Thanks a lot!!!
>
>
> best regards
>
> shijun
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1
>
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1
>



To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1

Re: [ccp4bb] disulfate bond ?

[CAVAZZA Christine 202795]

Yes, but one of the S atoms is not well positioned in the electron density. And 
it is a disulfide bond (S-S) and not a disulfate bond.

Christine

De : CCP4 bulletin board  De la part de Eleanor Dodson
Envoyé : mercredi 4 juillet 2018 12:18
À : CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Objet : Re: [ccp4bb] disulfate bond ?

Hmm - the "S" atoms look too close - S=S bond ~ 2A
Eleanor

On 4 July 2018 at 07:26, 张士军 
<21620150150...@stu.xmu.edu.cn> wrote:

Hi all

I got a structure which has COA in it, and the SH in the tail of COA is very 
close to the SH side chain of Cys in the structure. I don't know whether it is 
disulfate bond or not? I remember they should link together if they are 
disulfate bond,am I right? so what could this be? Thanks a lot!!!

best regards

shijun





To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1




To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1



To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1

Re: [ccp4bb] disulfate bond ?

[Robbie Joosten]

That’s because the ones om the left seem to be dragged into the wrong density. 
Sphere refine in Coot should clear that right up. After that it may very well 
look like a disulfide.

Cheers,
Robbie

Sent from my Windows 10 phone


From: CCP4 bulletin board  on behalf of Eleanor Dodson 
<176a9d5ebad7-dmarc-requ...@jiscmail.ac.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, July 4, 2018 12:18:12 PM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] disulfate bond ?

Hmm - the "S" atoms look too close - S=S bond ~ 2A

Eleanor

On 4 July 2018 at 07:26, 张士军 
<21620150150...@stu.xmu.edu.cn> wrote:

Hi all

I got a structure which has COA in it, and the SH in the tail of COA is very 
close to the SH side chain of Cys in the structure. I don't know whether it is 
disulfate bond or not? I remember they should link together if they are 
disulfate bond,am I right? so what could this be? Thanks a lot!!!

best regards

shijun





To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1




To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1



To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1

Re: [ccp4bb] disulfate bond ?

[Eleanor Dodson]

Hmm - the "S" atoms look too close - S=S bond ~ 2A

Eleanor

On 4 July 2018 at 07:26, 张士军 <21620150150...@stu.xmu.edu.cn> wrote:

> Hi all
>
> I got a structure which has COA in it, and the SH in the tail of COA
> is very close to the SH side chain of Cys in the structure. I don't know
> whether it is disulfate bond or not? I remember they
> should link together if they are disulfate bond,am I right?
>  so what could this be? Thanks a lot!!!
>
> best regards
>
> shijun
>
>
>
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1
>



To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1