Re: [ccp4bb] [Fwd: Re: [ccp4bb] FW: New ligand 3-letter code (help-7071)]

2015-06-21 Thread Miri Hirshberg
Sun., June 21st 2015 Good evening, adding several general points to the thread. (1) Fundamentally PDB unlike other chemical databases insists that all equal structures should have the same 3-letter code and the same atom names - obviously for amino acids and say ATP. (1.1) Needless to say

Re: [ccp4bb] [Fwd: Re: [ccp4bb] FW: New ligand 3-letter code (help-7071)]

2015-06-21 Thread Edward A. Berry
I can't imagine a journal doing that can you? When I work on my supplementary material in a paper I don't expect that the journal will take a bit out and publish it separately to support the work of my competitors. Not out of spite that I was beaten - but because I don't want to take the

Re: [ccp4bb] [Fwd: Re: [ccp4bb] FW: New ligand 3-letter code (help-7071)]

2015-06-21 Thread Martyn Symmons
Miri raises important points about issues in the PDB Chemical Component Dictionary - I think part of the problem is that this is published completely separately from the actual PDB - so for example I don't think we have an archive of the CCD for comparison alongside the PDB snapshots? This makes