You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
There are multiple types of restraints that are usually applied during modeling (like forcefields, excluded volume, or connectivity) that we do not record right now. In previous discussions, we considered them as "implementation details" and thus decided to ignore them. However, I think they are essential for the understanding of the modeling process. And since the supplementary table and validation report provide a list of restraints, those additional restraints can be easily missed/overlooked, because this information is typically buried in the methods/supplementary methods.
What do you think about adding _ihm.generic_restraint table? Something like:
_ihm.generic_restraint.id
_ihm.generic_restraint.name
_ihm.generic_restraint.description
1 Forcefield 'Amber99sb-ildn molecular mechanics forcefield'
2 'Excluded volume' 'Excluded volume restraint as implemented in IMP'
3 'Connectivity restraint' 'Sequential pairwise harmonic restraints were applied to mimic Ca-Ca distance of 3.8A'
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
There are multiple types of restraints that are usually applied during modeling (like forcefields, excluded volume, or connectivity) that we do not record right now. In previous discussions, we considered them as "implementation details" and thus decided to ignore them. However, I think they are essential for the understanding of the modeling process. And since the supplementary table and validation report provide a list of restraints, those additional restraints can be easily missed/overlooked, because this information is typically buried in the methods/supplementary methods.
What do you think about adding
_ihm.generic_restraint
table? Something like:The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: