Hi guys,
Maybe this may address a few of your questions. In 2019 we published a method
to validate structures unbiased from the terms used in refinement and works on
predicted models too.
Pražnikar, J., Tomić, M. & Turk, D. Validation and quality assessment of
macromolecular structures using
Dear CCP4BB Community,
I would like to bring your attention to a Tenure-track faculty position at
the rank of Assistant Professor in the Department of Biochemistry at the
University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL). We are looking for candidates with
research programs studying the structural biology
Hi Clemens,
I was aware of these possibilities with autoprocess and buster combination but
this is a very neat and useful explanation, many thanks.
The case I’m dealing most often these days with our users is when the raw data
are from staraniso (ie mmcif available) and the refined mtz is
Dear Dom,
On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 10:56:32PM +, Dom Bellini wrote:
> Thanks for your inputs. I wonder why the PDB doesn’t allow to submit
> two separate mtz files,
Ideally, these would actually be mmCIF files since MTZ files (1) can not hold
all meta data a PDBx/mmCIF compatible file could
May be useful if not already mentioned
Ten things I `hate' about refinement
Pietro Roversi and Dale E. Tronrud
https://journals.iucr.org/d/issues/2021/12/00/qt5008/index.html
-
Jean Cavarelli
Professor of Structural Biology
"Structural biology of epigenetic
I think quite a bit of this "inconsistency" with protein structures comes
from the fact that with our larger globules it is much more true that our
model is an approximate time and space average of something that could have
the ideal geometry.
I.e. the way we are trying to represent the density is
