Two cents are added here.

First, try P2 as somethimes systematic absence along b axis is misleading
due to weak diffraction or pseduo translation.

Second, try P1.

Good luck,

Donghui

On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 1:50 AM, Michele Lunelli <[email protected]> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> I am trying to solve a structure at 2.05 A resolution by molecular
> replacement. The space group
> seems to be P21, with unit cell dimension 52.63, 29.43, 104.970 and beta =
> 95.60.
> Only one copy of the protein should be present in the asymmetric unit, with
> 58% of solvent content.
> The search model used for MR is a truncated construct of the same protein,
> comprising more that 60%
> of the residues. However, no convincing MR solution is found (I used
> phaser, molrep, epmr and also
> mr.bump). No solutions refine to R and Rfree lower than 51-52%.
>
> The CCP4 documentation about twinning states that "Monoclinic with na + nc
> ~ a or na + nc ~ c can be
> twinned". This is not clear to me, but I have c = 2a, and therefore n =
> 2/3.
> Nevertheless all the tests run by ctruncate (and sfcheck) exclude twinning.
> The observed cumulative
> distribution for |L| almost overlap the expected untwinned, and the
> observed cumulative intensity
> distribution is not sigmoidal at all (actually it is growing faster that
> the theoretical). Also the
> acentric and centric moments exclude twinning, for example the acentric:
> <E> =  0.858 (Expected value = 0.886, Perfect Twin = 0.94)
> <E**3> =  1.442 (Expected value = 1.329, Perfect Twin = 1.175)
> <E**4> =  2.438 (Expected value = 2, Perfect Twin = 1.5)
>
> Both ctruncate and sfcheck found a pseudo-translation vector:
> ctruncate (0.050,  0.000,  0.957), ratio 0.23
> sfcheck (0.954, 0.000, 0.040), ratio 0.218
> However a second copy cannot be present in the asymmetric unit (there would
> be 16% of solvent
> content). Since the protein is expected to form a coiled-coil, I think that
> the detected
> pseudo-translation arises from the helices.
> Alternatively, it is possible that the space group is wrong? And if so, how
> can I figure out the
> correct one?
>
>
> Thank you in advance,
> Michele
>

Reply via email to