4.2 Article

Overview of refinement procedures within REFMAC5: utilizing data from different sources

期刊

出版社

INT UNION CRYSTALLOGRAPHY
DOI: 10.1107/S2059798318000979

关键词

REFMAC5; ProSMART; LORESTR; NMR restraints; refinement

资金

  1. Medical Research Council [MC_UP_A025_1012]
  2. CCP4/STFC [PR140014]
  3. BBSRC [BB/L007010/1]
  4. European Commission [675858]
  5. EMBO [ASTF 620-2015]
  6. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/L007010/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  7. Medical Research Council [MC_UP_A025_1012] Funding Source: researchfish
  8. BBSRC [BB/L007010/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  9. MRC [MC_UP_A025_1012] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Refinement is a process that involves bringing into agreement the structural model, available prior knowledge and experimental data. To achieve this, the refinement procedure optimizes a posterior conditional probability distribution of model parameters, including atomic coordinates, atomic displacement parameters (B factors), scale factors, parameters of the solvent model and twin fractions in the case of twinned crystals, given observed data such as observed amplitudes or intensities of structure factors. A library of chemical restraints is typically used to ensure consistency between the model and the prior knowledge of stereochemistry. If the observation-to-parameter ratio is small, for example when diffraction data only extend to low resolution, the Bayesian framework implemented in REFMAC5 uses external restraints to inject additional information extracted from structures of homologous proteins, prior knowledge about secondary-structure formation and even data obtained using different experimental methods, for example NMR. The refinement procedure also generates the 'best' weighted electron-density maps, which are useful for further model (re) building. Here, the refinement of macromolecular structures using REFMAC5 and related tools distributed as part of the CCP4 suite is discussed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据