<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD><META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><META content="INBOX.COM" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<div>Hi Pavel,</div><div><br></div><div>Thank you very much, this sounds very interesting.</div><div><br></div><div>I have used ccp4, coot and phenix but I am no expert but I am definitely interested in trying this method if you could give more information.</div><div><br></div><div>Thank you,</div><div>Patrick. </div><br><br><blockquote style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"><div class="msgHeaders">-----Original Message-----<br><b>From:</b> pafonine@lbl.gov<br><b>Sent:</b> Fri, 04 Jul 2014 20:34:33 -0700<br><b>To:</b> patrick.cossins@inbox.com, phenixbb@phenix-online.org<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [phenixbb] alternatives to RMSD<br><br></div><div class="oldBody"><div>
Hi Patrick,<br>
<br>
RMSD is a poor measure in this case as it does not account for
B-factors, occupancies, alternative conformations and so on
information a crystal structure model may make available.
Macromolecules are not a bunch of points in space.<br>
<br>
While I'm sure more thorough methods exist, I would vote for the
simplest, most direct and obvious one. You can calculate electron
density map using a Gaussian approximation from model A and B (yes,
electron density map - not a Fourier image of it!). That will
naturally account for all: B-factors, occupancies, other disorder.
Then you can calculate a map similarity measure, such as map
correlation, for instance. After all, why use a cannon to kill a
fly?!<br>
<br>
If you are interested to follow this route I can explain the
details.<br>
<br>
All the best,<br>
Pavel<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:3DC97382C23.000010FBpatrick.cossins@inbox.com" type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<meta content="INBOX.COM" name="GENERATOR">
Hi Phenix users,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I am not a crystallographer but I though you guys might be a
good place to ask this question.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I have 2 super secondary structures, A and B and they consist
of Helix-turn-Strand</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Due to the turn the two structures have a poor RMSD because
the two flanking fragments of Helix and Strand are far from each
other but when I superimpose the two fragments
individually(helixA with helix B and standA with strandB in
Pymol they align very well).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Now, is there a way to express this instead of using the
RMSD?</div>
<div>When the two structures align well the RMSD is very good but
a slight movement and the RMSD is awful.</div>
<div>But looking at the two structures I can see they follow the
same path through space.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thank you,</div>
<div>Patrick<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote>
<hr size="1px" noshade style="clear:both;margin-top:10px;height:1px;">
<div style="font:12px Verdana,sans-serif;color:Black;background:white;padding:3px;line-height:1.3em">
<a href="http://backup.pcrx.com/mail"><img src="http://my.inbox.com/img/ftrs/pcrxbackup.jpg" width="424" height="73" alt="Protect your computer files with professional cloud backup. Get PCRx Backup and upload unlimited files automatically." border="0" style="margin-bottom:10px" /></a></div>
</BODY>
</HTML>