Re: [ccp4bb] Ramachandran statistics

Protein crystallography Programs for crystallography X-ray detectors
Basic tutorials:
Protein Peptide

CCP4bb navigation

CCP4bb <-- 2008 <-- January 2008 <-- 02 January 2008

Previous message:
Subject: Ramachandran statistics
From: mark Mayer mayerm {- at -} MAIL {- dot -} NIH {- dot -} GOV
Date: 2008-01-02

Next message:
Subject: Re: Ramachandran statistics
From: Juergen Bosch jbosch {- at -} U {- dot -} WASHINGTON {- dot -} EDU
Date: 2008-01-02

Subject: Re: Ramachandran statistics
From: Ethan Merritt merritt {- at -} U {- dot -} WASHINGTON {- dot -} EDU
Date: 2008-01-02

On Wednesday 02 January 2008 10:17, mark Mayer wrote:
>
> Is there a consensus about which program / data base most accurately reports Ramachandran
> statistics? I believe that PROCHECK inaccurately flags outliers because the data base was compiled
> many years ago, and there are now many more high resolution structures. Likewise I think I've heard
> (no insults intended) that the Richardson library used by MOLPROBITY is a bit too generous?

I am not aware of any grounds to doubt the Molprobity distributions.

By "too generous", do you mean that the sigma levels corresponding to category
boundaries are too high, or do you mean that the quality of structures used to
generate the distribution tables was not sufficiently stringent, or what?

> What are people using currently to report Ramachandran statistics in papers?

Molprobity.

--
Ethan A Merritt Courier Deliveries: 1959 NE Pacific
Dept of Biochemistry
Health Sciences Building
University of Washington - Seattle WA 98195-7742

CCP4bb navigation

CCP4bb <-- 2008 <-- January 2008 <-- 02 January 2008

Previous message:
Subject: Ramachandran statistics
From: mark Mayer mayerm {- at -} MAIL {- dot -} NIH {- dot -} GOV
Date: 2008-01-02

Next message:
Subject: Re: Ramachandran statistics
From: Juergen Bosch jbosch {- at -} U {- dot -} WASHINGTON {- dot -} EDU
Date: 2008-01-02