The point I was trying to make was that, assuming that there are no large outliers skewing the final RMS(angles), an overall RMS of 2.3-2.7 would be worrisome.

On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Pavel Afonine <pafonine@lbl.gov> wrote:
Hi Ed,

yes, that's right. One is to detect severe outliers that may screw up the overall numbers. The other one is to compare these overall numbers with those derived from similar structures available in the data base.

Pavel


On 9/19/14 11:05 AM, Edward A. Berry wrote:
Two different histograms involved here?
For one structure, histogram of the deviations at all the different bonds, angles
For the entire PDB, histogram of rmsd of all the different structures

On 09/19/2014 12:50 PM, Katherine Sippel wrote:
This is from Phenix's FAQ page...

*"My resolution is X Angstroms; what should RMS(bonds) and RMS(angles) be?*

This is somewhat controversial, but absolute upper limits for a well-refined protein structure at high resolution are typically 0.02 for RMS(bonds) and 2.0 for RMS(angles); usually they will be significantly lower. As resolution decreases the acceptable deviation from geometry restraints also decreases, so at 3.5 Angstrom, more appropriate values would be 0.01 and 1.0."

If the histogram shows that the RMS(angles) average higher than 2 then I think that would be a result of poorly refined structures skewing the graph rather than a reflection of what the RMS should be.



On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 1:57 AM, Pavel Afonine <pafonine@lbl.gov <mailto:pafonine@lbl.gov>> wrote:

    Hi,

    if you make sure these values are not caused by a handful of atoms that flew a distance apart for whatever reason then values like ok to me. This is why looking at a histogram of deviations (bond, angles etc) is way more useful than looking at just one number!

    Pavel


    On 9/18/14 1:32 PM, C wrote:
    Hi,

    Refining using phenix I find the RMS angle drifting towards 2.3-2.7 range when validating the resulting structure.

    These are high resolution structures and I was wondering if someone could comment on whether 2.3-2.7 values are worrisome?
    Thank you



    _______________________________________________
    phenixbb mailing list
    phenixbb@phenix-online.org <mailto:phenixbb@phenix-online.org>
    http://phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb




--
"Nil illegitimo carborundum"/- /Didactylos


_______________________________________________
phenixbb mailing list
phenixbb@phenix-online.org
http://phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb

_______________________________________________
phenixbb mailing list
phenixbb@phenix-online.org
http://phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb

_______________________________________________
phenixbb mailing list
phenixbb@phenix-online.org
http://phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb



--
"Nil illegitimo carborundum" - Didactylos