A trick I like is just to freeze the reservoir solution or would-be
cryo-solution without a crystal present. If the frozen solution stays clear and
does not show ice rings on e.g. a home source, it is worth trying. Otherwise,
the solution needs optimization.
Herman
-Ursprüngliche
Excellent point about R-factors. Indeed, at this resolution they should be
quite lower than what you have. Did you:
- model solvent?
- use anisotropic ADPs?
- add H (this alone can drop R by 1-2%)?
- model alternative conformations?
- How R-factors (Rwork) look in resolution?
Pavel
On Mon, Aug
Maybe a few remarks might help:
Ad a) R merge of 80% may be OK if I/sig for high res shell is 2.
What rationale is that statement based upon and what is the exact meaning of
this statement?
Is an Rmerge of 80% not ok when I/sigi is say 1.5? Or would 80% be ok if
the i/sigI is 3.0?
The question you should ask yourself is why would omitting data improve my
model?
Phil
On 27 Aug 2013, at 02:49, Emily Golden 10417...@student.uwa.edu.au wrote:
Hi All,
I have collected diffraction images to 1 Angstrom resolution to the edge of
the detector and 0.9A to the corner.I
Next MX-proposal application deadline: September 1, 2013 is approaching
The Pilatus 6M is operational at BL14.1, which leads to a substantial
performance increase of this station
Single 8h beamtime bookings are now possible
We kindly invite new MX-proposals for beamtime applications for the next
Hi ccp4 experts,
I
have collected diffraction images to 0.96 Angstrom resolution to the edge
of the detector. One data set give me the full completeness and
below i have pasted my statistic values got from XDS.
I have cut off data at 1.12 A which seems to be quite nice regarding all
Hi Phoebe,
Could you please explain me how do you stain the piece of paper?
Thank you
Armando
El 21/08/2013, a las 17:03, Phoebe A. Rice escribió:
Hi Bernhard,
If your cheap imidazole works fine aside from the absorption problem,
there's always my favorite stone-age detection method:
Herman,
The trick you suggest is not as valid as you may think. The ice rings can
originate from the crystal itself.
If you crystallize in a high concentration PEG precipitant you will avoid
ice rings,
but if you transfer or soak your crystals in the same solution the high
molecular weight
that doesnt seem too bad an Rfactor to me! What do you expect?
Eleanor
On 27 August 2013 09:59, Afshan Begum afshan...@yahoo.com wrote:
Hi ccp4 experts,
I have collected diffraction images to 0.96 Angstrom resolution to the edge
of the detector. One data set give me the full completeness
Dear Enrico,
You are right that the trick has its limitations and I am aware of it. However,
it might not be as bad as you think. Fiddling with the crystallization buffer
or transferring crystals to different buffers also causes stress to the
crystals and in many cases loss of resolution. If
Hi all,
does this not again bring up the still prevailing adherence to R factors
and not a shift to correlation coefficients ( CC1/2 and CC*) ? (as Dr.
Phil Evans has indicated).?
The way we look at data quality ( by we I mean the end users ) needs to
be altered, I guess.
best,
Arka Chakraborty
Anindito,
First off, I have never tried this, but here are a few initial thoughts on how
I might approach this. But first a question, how tight is the dimer form? if
you mixed dimers with tags and dimers without tags, would you get any exchange?
If so, you might be able to use this to your
Nicholas is right that it depends a lot on the dimer you are working
with. I worked on a dimeric tRNA synthetase and was able to make
heterodimers in a couple of ways. The most effective was to make a
bicistronic version of the ORFs each with their own S-D. Each had a tag
for tandem affinity
Hello Anindito,
While Nick and Paul have thrown you some great ideas around the TAP-tag
theme (although GST may not be ideal as it dimerises itself), I feel that
I've read your initial e-mail differently from them. Maybe you could
clarify?
It sounds like you have a specific tag of ~5kDa in
Dear Niu,
I first would look at the data set statistics of the data set before
investigating individual reflections, and also take a look at FRAME.cbf which
shows the predicted spots for the last integrated image.
Best,
Tim
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 04:34:11PM -0400, Niu Tou wrote:
Dear
I have to ask flamingly: So what about CC1/2 and CC*?
Did we not replace an arbitrary resolution cut-off based on a value of Rmerge
with an arbitrary resolution cut-off based on a value of Rmeas already? And
now we are going to replace that with an arbitrary resolution cut-off based on
a
Hi Jim,
all data is good data - the more data you have the better (that's what they say
anyhow)
Not everybody is adopting to the Karplus Diederich paper as quickly as you do.
And not to be confused with the Diederichs and Karplus paper :-)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3689524/
Based on the simulations I've done the data should be cut at CC1/2 = 0.
Seriously. Problem is figuring out where it hits zero.
Alternately, if French Wilson can be modified so the Wilson plot is always
straight, then the data don't need to be cut at all.
As for the resolution of the
18 matches
Mail list logo
