Re: [ccp4bb] New PDB validation reports

2014-07-14 Thread Randy Read
Dear Katherine,

Thanks for pointing this out!  As far as I can tell the community has not 
reached a consensus on dealing with disordered side chains.  I’m afraid it 
simply didn’t occur to us, when we were writing the validation task force 
report, that one approach would be favoured over the other, and we certainly 
didn’t intend to influence community practice by stealth!

This unintended consequence really should have occurred to us, since Gerard 
Kleywegt and I had noticed earlier that structural genomics structures 
(particularly those from the SGC) have a systematically lower completeness than 
other structures, apparently because the choice was made more often to 
completely omit poorly-ordered residues rather than include them in the model.  
This leaves out many of the residues that would have poor Ramachandran and 
rotamer scores, thus raising those scores above the average in a similar way.  
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2631636/)

Some indication of completeness probably would be a good thing to include in 
the validation reports.

Best wishes,

Randy Read

On 10 Jul 2014, at 20:26, Katherine Sippel katherine.sip...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi all,
 
 I've been playing with the new PDB validation service. It is very pretty and 
 kudos to all the hard work that has clearly gone into it. I did notice 
 however that the way the information is presented, there seems to be a bias 
 towards truncating side chains versus modeling them with higher b-factors. 
 The disordered side chains have higher RSRZs (rightfully so), but there 
 doesn't seem to be any indicator for missing atoms. As a results I can make 
 my validation report prettier by truncating versus modeling with high Bs. 
 
 I don't want to kick an ant pile here, but given this rather significant 
 difference in quality reporting, I was wondering if the community had reached 
 a consensus on this issue that I had missed. 
 
 Cheers,
 Katherine
 
 -- 
 Nil illegitimo carborundum - Didactylos

--
Randy J. Read
Department of Haematology, University of Cambridge
Cambridge Institute for Medical Research  Tel: + 44 1223 336500
Wellcome Trust/MRC Building   Fax: + 44 1223 336827
Hills RoadE-mail: rj...@cam.ac.uk
Cambridge CB2 0XY, U.K.   www-structmed.cimr.cam.ac.uk



[ccp4bb] New PDB validation reports

2014-07-10 Thread Katherine Sippel
Hi all,

I've been playing with the new PDB validation service. It is very pretty
and kudos to all the hard work that has clearly gone into it. I did notice
however that the way the information is presented, there seems to be a bias
towards truncating side chains versus modeling them with higher b-factors.
The disordered side chains have higher RSRZs (rightfully so), but there
doesn't seem to be any indicator for missing atoms. As a results I can make
my validation report prettier by truncating versus modeling with high Bs.

I don't want to kick an ant pile here, but given this rather significant
difference in quality reporting, I was wondering if the community had
reached a consensus on this issue that I had missed.

Cheers,
Katherine

-- 
Nil illegitimo carborundum* - *Didactylos


Re: [ccp4bb] New PDB validation reports

2014-07-10 Thread Debasish Chattopadhyay
Glad you brought it up Katherine.

Debasish

From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Katherine 
Sippel
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 2:26 PM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: [ccp4bb] New PDB validation reports

Hi all,
I've been playing with the new PDB validation service. It is very pretty and 
kudos to all the hard work that has clearly gone into it. I did notice however 
that the way the information is presented, there seems to be a bias towards 
truncating side chains versus modeling them with higher b-factors. The 
disordered side chains have higher RSRZs (rightfully so), but there doesn't 
seem to be any indicator for missing atoms. As a results I can make my 
validation report prettier by truncating versus modeling with high Bs.

I don't want to kick an ant pile here, but given this rather significant 
difference in quality reporting, I was wondering if the community had reached a 
consensus on this issue that I had missed.
Cheers,
Katherine

--
Nil illegitimo carborundum - Didactylos