 |
 |
as a matter of interest - which conformations differ? Eleanor On 4 September 2017 at 16:29, Victor Lamzin <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Dear Ameya, > > DipCheck uses a novel 3-dimensional parameter space for validation of the > backbone geometry, and we hope that it can be more informative than some of > the existing validation approaches. We also hope that DipCheck can be a > good validation tool as its inverse task does not seem to be solvable - in > other words the DipCheck parameter space cannot be used to better > 'geometrise' a protein model. We are discussing with the PDB colleagues a > possibility for DipCheck to join the PDB validation tools. > > With best regards, > Victor > > > On 04/09/2017 16:53, ameya benz wrote: > > Dear Victor, > > I used the server. However I found that the % of residues in disallowed > region given by your server and PDB validation server differs. What could > be the probable reason? > > regards, > Ameya > > On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 8:12 PM, Victor Lamzin <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > >> >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> We announce the DipCheck Webservice for validation of backbone geometry >> in protein structures as described in: >> https://doi.org/10.1107/S2052252517008466 >> >> The Webservice is available at: >> http://cluster.embl-hamburg.de/dipcheck >> >> Joana Pereira, Umut Oezugurel, Philipp Heuser and Victor Lamzin >> >> > >