tpwalsh at acer.gen.tcd.ie (Tom Walsh) writes:
> >
> >What you cannot do (nor can anyone else) is predict the fine atomic
> >structural differences. The only people that need concern themselves
> >with homology modelling methods are the ones trying to make
> >them work or who are just plain curious about them. Homology
> >modelling is currently a toy, not a tool, along with all other ab
> >initio tertiary structure prediction methods.
> >
> >Scott Le Grand
>> I wouldn't dismiss homology modelling as a toy but its usefulness as a tool
> depends on what you use it for. It's nowhere near predicting atomic positions
> with the same accuracy as Xtallography or NMR so it's useless for structure-
> aided drug design, no matter how high the homology is. I think homology models
> can be useful for protein engineers who need a guide for doing mutations, but
> only if it's done carefully with a proper respect for its limitations. There
> are a lot of models being published by people who can only be described as
> amateurs; they've read the tutorials in the Biosym Homology manual and think
> they know what they're doing.
>
Well, That is surely true for crystal structures, but for NMR
structures I am not sure. Read Abagyans recent JMB paper
(jmb,268:678-685)
arne
-------------- next part --------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The more I use Windows, the more I love Linux
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arne Elofsson arne at bimbo.biokemi.su.sehttp://www.biokemi.su.se/~arne/
Tel:+46(0)8-161553 Dept of Biochemistry, Stockholm University
Fax:+46(0)8-153679 10691 Stockholm, Sweden
