 |
PDBsum entry 2gyc
|
|
|
|
 |
Contents |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
222 a.a.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
119 a.a.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
227 a.a.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
209 a.a.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
198 a.a.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
177 a.a.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
167 a.a.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
149 a.a.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
139 a.a.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
142 a.a.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
122 a.a.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
140 a.a.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
131 a.a.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
114 a.a.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
113 a.a.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
114 a.a.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
115 a.a.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
106 a.a.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
92 a.a.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
99 a.a.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
94 a.a.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
84 a.a.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
60 a.a.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
56 a.a.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29 a.a.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
52 a.a.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Generate full PROCHECK analyses
|
PROCHECK summary for 2gyc
Ramachandran plot
PROCHECK statistics
1. Ramachandran Plot statistics
No. of
residues %-tage
------ ------
Most favoured regions [A,B,L] 1744 60.7%**
Additional allowed regions [a,b,l,p] 885 30.8%
Generously allowed regions [~a,~b,~l,~p] 179 6.2%
Disallowed regions [XX] 63 2.2%*
---- ------
Non-glycine and non-proline residues 2871 100.0%
End-residues (excl. Gly and Pro) 109
Glycine residues 303
Proline residues 106
----
Total number of residues 3389
Based on an analysis of 118 structures of resolution of at least 2.0 Angstroms and R-factor no greater than 20.0 a good
quality model would be expected to have over 90% in the most favoured regions [A,B,L].
2. G-Factors
Average
Parameter Score Score
--------- ----- -----
Dihedral angles:-
Phi-psi distribution -1.38**
Chi1-chi2 distribution -0.58*
Chi1 only -0.07
Chi3 & chi4 0.39
Omega 0.69
-0.25
=====
Main-chain covalent forces:-
Main-chain bond lengths 0.67
Main-chain bond angles 0.58
0.62
=====
OVERALL AVERAGE 0.09
=====
G-factors provide a measure of how unusual, or out-of-the-ordinary, a property is.
Values below -0.5* - unusual
Values below -1.0** - highly unusual
Important note: The main-chain
bond-lengths and bond angles are compared with
the Engh & Huber (1991) ideal values derived
from small-molecule data. Therefore, structures
refined using different restraints may show
apparently large deviations from normality.
|
|
 |