I appreciate learning that the R32/H32 tangle was based on a wwPDB recommendation. For some reason, I find it calming to view this as a PDB issue and not a ccp4 one. Ron
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009, Eleanor Dodson wrote:
> Just a correction - ccp4 had NOTHING to do with H32 definitions - just followed
> the wwwPDB requirements.. there were bitter arguments over accepting it from
> many!
>
> E
>
>
> Peter Zwart wrote:
>> Hi Stephen,
>>
>>> R32
>>> H32
>>> R32 :H
>>
>> Correct. These are all hexagonal setting. As far as I know, the
>> hexagonal setting of R32 (R32:H) is the first one that comes up in the
>> ITvA as is listed a R32. The rhombohedral/primitive setting of R32
>> (R32:R) comes second in the ITvA, I guess the first setting takes
>> precedence. H32 is a pdb/ccp4ism.
>>
>> In my cctbx-skewed view, it looks like this:
>>
>> R32 == R32:H (== H32; not supported by the cctbx)
>>
>> R32:R is the primitive setting of R32:H
>>
>> Appending the setting to the space group makes life easier (no
>> ambiguities) and you can do more funky stuff if one has the
>> stomach/need to do so [like "P212121 (a+b,a-b,c)" ].
>>
>>
>> HTHP
>
|