This is an archive copy of the IUCr web site dating from 2008. For current content please visit https://www.iucr.org.
[IUCr Home Page] [CIF Home Page] [mmCIF Home Page]

Re: Helix Classification

herbert_bernstein (yaya@aip.org)
Fri, 12 Jul 96 10:39:51 EDT 

I agree with Dale's quibble.  It applies both to my suggestion to
the PDB and to the mmCIF dictionary from which the phrase was
copied. -- HJB

--- Forwarded mail from mmciflist@ndbdev.rutgers.edu

>From mmciflist@ndbdev.rutgers.edu Fri Jul 12 09:14:07 1996
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 07:41:01 -0400
>From: Dale Tronrud <DALE@osmium.uoregon.edu>
To: yaya@aip.org
Subject: Re: Helix Classification


 yaya@aip.org (herbert_bernstein) writes:

>Could the PDB please consider adding the following additional HELIX
>types to the HELIX class field (columns 39-40) of the HELIX record,

snip... snip... snip...

>Suggested additional classifications:
>
>  11.  helix with handedness and type not specified (protein)
>  12.  helix with handedness and type that do not
>       conform to an accepted category (protein)
>  13.  right-handed helix with type not specified (protein)
>  14.  right-handed helix with type that does not
>       conform to an accepted category (protein)

snip... snip... snip...


	   I have just a minor quibble.  Using the term "accepted category"
	implies that the converse is, in some sense, unacceptable.  I
	suggest you use the phrase "established category" instead.

						Dale Tronrud
						dale@uoxray.uoregon.edu
						University of Oregon



--- End of forwarded message from mmciflist@ndbdev.rutgers.edu