Dear Herman, On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 10:26:09AM +0000, Herman Schreuder wrote: > I did understand your question correctly and (at least for ligands) > the procedure I and also Diana Tomchick described, worked. However, > I just did a test with both Refmac and Buster and it seems that > these programs have now so far been perfected that “errors” like > this cannot occur anymore.
You might not have seen the reply to Ed's original question on the BUSTER discussion mailing list [1]. It is not fully automatic and might look slightly complicated (the intention was to give the full background information for such a problem) - so doesn't qualify as a "native" solution that Ed was looking for. It is of course possible to handle micro-heterogeneity in BUSTER (and also in REFMAC - after all: most structures marked with "MICROHETEROGENEITY" in the PDB have been refined with it). If this becomes a more common and pressing need for our users, development of a "native" solution would move higher up the priority list list in the future. It is very good to hear from users (like Ed) when something doesn't quite work as expected - even if they then decide to switch to another package/program for a particular problem. Cheers Clemens, Peter & Gerard [1] http://www.globalphasing.com/pipermail/buster-discuss/2019-February/thread.html > So it seems that the poor crystallographers who have crystallized proteins > which are heterogeneous at certain positions, will have to switch to Phenix. ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1
