[phenixbb] phenix.pdb_as_cif

Pavel Afonine pafonine at lbl.gov
Wed Jan 14 13:44:27 PST 2015


Hi,

could you please send me the PDB file? I need to be able to reproduce 
this problem myself so that I can comment meaningfully.

Thanks,
Pavel

On 1/14/15 10:21 AM, jp d wrote:
> hi,
> of course, i should have included the version
> phenix.version_1.9-1692
>
> the pdb has done more digging and included this comment
>
> "Aside from the asym_id, there is another way we use for the mapping,
> _atom_site_anisotrop.id <http://atom_site_anisotrop.id/> should 
> map(for ANSIO) to _atom_site.id <http://atom_site.id/>(for ATOM).
>
> This is one-by-one match for each atom. If you look at the file, you 
> see that in the ATOM section, you have
> ATOM 99999 N3 . U . 367 ? -23.56200 29.36600 106.68800 1.000 135.52000 
> N ? UC ? 11964 1
> ATOM 100000 C4 . U . 367 ? -23.35700 30.62600 106.16100 1.000 
> 133.22000 C ? UC ? 11964 1
>
> But in the ANISO section, you have
> 99999 N3 . U . 367 ? 2.04230 1.43260 1.67410 -0.19220 -0.28280 -0.16500
> A0000 C4 . U . 367 ? 2.00150 1.41600 1.64420 -0.1 8730 -0.28010 -0.16450
>
> i.e. the atom No. after 99999 is inconsistent between the two 
> sections. The ANISO should use 100000.
> "
>
> thanks
> jpd
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> phenixbb mailing list
> phenixbb at phenix-online.org
> http://phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://phenix-online.org/pipermail/phenixbb/attachments/20150114/522f64fa/attachment.htm>


More information about the phenixbb mailing list