Dear Huw,

Many thanks for this information. I had seen the notice about Molprobity using 
CCTBX validation metrics, but I mistakenly thought that Phenix used the CCP4 
monomer library, which I think was true once but is clearly no longer the case. 

Given the very small sigma values associated with the Phenix C4-C5 bond length, 
it could be said to differ by 10.4 standard deviations from the CCP4 monomer 
library value !

Many thanks to all others who have responded too. 

In response to Dale's comment, the frustrating thing is that this is not 
interesting at all, it is merely confusing. The resolution of the new structure 
is only ~3 Å, so there is no way that one can make meaningful statements about 
distortions from standard geometry. The warnings merely highlight the fact that 
we do not have adequate library entries.

Best wishes,

Andrew



On 15 Sep 2014, at 17:14, Huw Jenkins <h.t.jenk...@me.com> wrote:

>                               
> On 15 Sep 2014, at 15:24, Andrew Leslie <and...@mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
>> This would suggest that the standard dictionary that Molprobity uses has 
>> changed, but I cannot find any reference to this on the Molprobity pages. 
>> 
>> I would be very grateful if anyone can throw some light on this.
> 
> MolProbity now uses the same target values as Phenix:
> 
> "MolProbity4 structure validation now provides many of its validation metrics 
> through CCTBX, the open-source component of the Phenix crystallographic 
> package. CCTBX allows for consistent validation results with Phenix, as well 
> as added functionality, such as geometry regularization of NQH flips” 
> 
> The target values for the C4-C5 bond length and the C5-C4-N3 bond angle are 
> quite different in the two libraries:
> 
> 
> ccp4-6.4.0/lib/data/monomers/a/ANP.cif 
> 
> ANP      C4     C5        double      1.490    0.020
> 
> ANP      C5     C4     N3      120.000    3.000
> 
> phenix-1.9-1692/chem_data/geostd/a/data_ANP.cif 
> 
> ANP   C5      C4    aromatic      1.386 0.010
> 
> ANP   N3      C4      C5          126.80 0.741
> 
> That explains the 8-10 sigma deviations reported by MolProbity but it doesn’t 
> explain which target values are (more) correct. 
> 
> 
> 
> Huw

Reply via email to