sounds good to me
On Oct 8, 2009, at 6:35 PM, Daniel Russel wrote:
On Oct 8, 2009, at 6:32 PM, Keren Lasker wrote:
ok - if you mean that Chain should not be part of the Hierarchy, I
guess it makes sense, as usually protein == chain.
To make things clear, I'm using the IMP names, so CHAIN, PROTEIN are
HierarchyTypes and Chain is a decorator. So there would not be a
CHAIN hierarchy type, but a PROTEIN could be a Chain (if it has a
chain designator). Sounds a bit icky...
On Oct 8, 2009, at 6:15 PM, Keren Lasker wrote:
for me more then one chain is an assembly ( or complex)
I would leave Chain because in modeling sometimes people takes
domains from different places ( with different chain ids) and this
information might be useful.
On Oct 8, 2009, at 6:13 PM, Daniel Russel wrote:
Does it make sense to talk about a protein which consists of more
than one chain? I've heard people use the words that way (and
there are google hits, but not a huge number), but it was
suggested that this is a misuse of the words. It would make the
atom hierarchy a bit simpler to say a protein is a single chain
and has HierarchyType PROTEIN (and to remove the CHAIN type).