Difference between revisions of "Talk:Glucocerebrosidase homology modelling"
From Bioinformatikpedia
m |
|||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Some comments: |
Some comments: |
||
* an RMSD of 1.9 A between the apo and a complex reference structure seems higher than expected for me. Do you know where the big differences are? |
* an RMSD of 1.9 A between the apo and a complex reference structure seems higher than expected for me. Do you know where the big differences are? |
||
+ | * It's interesting that Modeller messed up the secondary structures for the mixed templates. Are the templates so different? Didn't it manage to align them in 3D? |
||
− | * |
||
+ | * Did you notice that the TM-score of the combined model is also better than the the on of the 2E4T model alone? |
||
+ | * Modeller also gives a numeric score for its models (DOPE). Did you check that? Does that score correlate with the model quality? |
Revision as of 14:01, 17 June 2011
Very nice report!
Some comments:
- an RMSD of 1.9 A between the apo and a complex reference structure seems higher than expected for me. Do you know where the big differences are?
- It's interesting that Modeller messed up the secondary structures for the mixed templates. Are the templates so different? Didn't it manage to align them in 3D?
- Did you notice that the TM-score of the combined model is also better than the the on of the 2E4T model alone?
- Modeller also gives a numeric score for its models (DOPE). Did you check that? Does that score correlate with the model quality?