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). >>> >>> Authoritative answers? Votes? >>> _______________________________________________ >>> IMP-dev mailing list >>> IMP-dev@salilab.org >>> https://salilab.org/mailman/listinfo/imp-dev >> > > _______________________________________________ > IMP-dev mailing list > IMP-dev@salilab.org > https://salilab.org/mailman/listinfo/imp-dev