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

Reply via email to