An exciting junior postdoc opportunity, ideal for the structure-educated
biochemist looking to brush-up their maths skills (or finally put them to some
good use :-)): Mathematical modelling of bi-directional synaptic signalling
Details at:
Note that we discuss rmsZ values in the paper, not rmsd. This is done on
purpose; rmsd values do not take the standard deviation of bond lengths into
account. This makes it needlessly difficult to compare values.
Consider reporting rmsZ instead of rmsd.
Cheers,
Robbie
Sent from my Windows
Fourth Workshop on Neutron Scattering Applications in Structural Biology
Oak Ridge, TN. June 24 - June 28, 2013
Application deadline: April 22, 2013
The workshop on Neutron Scattering Applications in Structural Biology aims at
enabling structural biologist to fully exploit the latest
Maybe a silly question, but -
Is this standard deviation of bond lengths that of each bond type in
the Eng and Huber paper, or the standard deviations in the structure
being validated?
Robbie Joosten wrote:
Note that we discuss rmsZ values in the paper, not rmsd. This is done on
purpose; rmsd
Hi Edward
It's the E H value, i.e. the SU of the restraint, not that of the bond
lengths angles which in most cases is not calculated (you need to form
the full Hessian matrix to do it).
The RMS Z-score doesn't behave as you might naively expect since you're
actually comparing apples pears,
