Or perhaps there is only 1 copy and more solvent than you expect? This is not 
that uncommon.

On 20 Sep 2014 12:09, Randy Read <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Just to add to what Herman said: 
>
> The statistics are good for placing the domain represented by ensemble 1 
> (TFZ=14.3) and the first copy of the domain represented by ensemble 2 
> (TFZ=11.9), but not for the two possible solutions for placing the second 
> copy of ensemble 2 (TFZs of 4.5 and 4.7).  So it’s possible that only the 
> placement of the first two components is correct.  If you turn on symmetry in 
> coot, do those two domains come together to form a sensible whole protein?  
> If so, you could try using that composite model to look for more copies of 
> the whole protein (keeping in mind Herman’s point about the possible numbers 
> of copies). 
>
> That said, it’s going to be a challenge to finish up the structure rebuilding 
> and refinement when you have limited resolution and relatively low sequence 
> identity starting models.  With 3-fold or greater NCS, averaging would help a 
> great deal (2-fold helps somewhat but is less powerful); otherwise, you’re 
> likely to need some additional phase information. 
>
> Best wishes, 
>
> Randy Read 
>
> ----- 
> Randy J. Read 
> Department of Haematology, University of Cambridge 
> Cambridge Institute for Medical Research    Tel: +44 1223 336500 
> Wellcome Trust/MRC Building                         Fax: +44 1223 336827 
> Hills Road                                                            E-mail: 
> [email protected] 
> Cambridge CB2 0XY, U.K.                               
> www-structmed.cimr.cam.ac.uk 
>
> On 19 Sep 2014, at 10:33, Veerendra KUMAR (IMCB) 
> <[email protected]> wrote: 
>
> > Dear CCP4 members, 
> > 
> > Recently I have collected native data at 3.3 A resolution. The structure of 
> > the protein should have two domains. The structure of c terminal domain 
> > from homologous (30 seq similarity) is known. I took n terminal domain from 
> > another homologous protein. I ran the phaser using these two ensembles and 
> > got the following solutions. 
> > #   [No title given] 
> > SOLU SET RFZ=3.9 TFZ=14.3 PAK=4 LLG=144 TFZ==10.5 RFZ=2.4 TFZ=11.9 PAK=9 
> > LLG=259 TFZ==7.0 RFZ=4.0 TFZ=4.5 PAK=24 LLG=207 TFZ==7.4 
> > SOLU SPAC I 41 3 2 
> > SOLU 6DIM ENSE ensemble1 EULER 43.364 14.638 271.356 FRAC 0.81509 0.22245 
> > 0.92422 BFAC -7.23070 
> > SOLU 6DIM ENSE ensemble2 EULER 173.495 55.758 234.557 FRAC 1.25797 -0.71934 
> > 0.10135 BFAC 1.81823 
> > SOLU 6DIM ENSE ensemble2 EULER 351.235 68.606 254.802 FRAC 0.64931 0.81795 
> > 0.27592 BFAC 5.82534 
> > SOLU ENSE ensemble1 VRMS 1.157 
> > SOLU ENSE ensemble2 VRMS 1.540 
> > SOLU SET RFZ=3.9 TFZ=14.3 PAK=4 LLG=144 TFZ==10.5 RFZ=2.4 TFZ=11.9 PAK=9 
> > LLG=259 TFZ==7.0 RFZ=2.7 TFZ=4.7 PAK=19 LLG=202 
> > SOLU SPAC I 41 3 2 
> > SOLU 6DIM ENSE ensemble1 EULER 43.364 14.638 271.356 FRAC 0.81509 0.22245 
> > 0.92422 BFAC -7.23070 
> > SOLU 6DIM ENSE ensemble2 EULER 173.495 55.758 234.557 FRAC 1.25797 -0.71934 
> > 0.10135 BFAC 1.81823 
> > SOLU 6DIM ENSE ensemble2 EULER 41.452 118.850 315.630 FRAC 0.61025 0.05816 
> > 1.60902 BFAC 5.47988 
> > SOLU ENSE ensemble1 VRMS 1.157 
> > SOLU ENSE ensemble2 VRMS 1.540 
> > 
> > The TFZ score 14.3 suggests a solution. Then I did refinement using Ploy 
> > Ala phaser model. The R values are 0.590/0.62. I use the map to build the 
> > model in Buccaneer but it did not build anything. 
> > 
> > Is the pahser solution correct? Why are the R values so high despite the 
> > good TFZ score? Any suggestions are greatly appreciated. 
> > 
> > Thank you 
> > 
> > Veerendra 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Note: This message may contain confidential information. If this Email/Fax 
> > has been sent to you by mistake, please notify the sender and delete it 
> > immediately. Thank you. 

Reply via email to