This is a bit too vague to help much. How did you solve the structure? Eleanor
On 26 January 2017 at 03:50, Pooja Kesari <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear All, > Thank you all for reply. > > We have checked the data for twinning. > Our protein is 360 residues around 40 kDa protein. > We have tried TLS refinement. > chain A and B don't superimpose well with chain C and D. (A and B chains > also share slight difference ) > Since we don't have proper density for *some regions* chain C and D, we > are not sure whether these chain have similar or different conformations. > We tried anisotropy correction and the model refined a bit. > > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Debanu <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Pooja, >> >> Are you positive you have the correct space group and there are no other >> issues like twinning, etc? >> >> If sure, did you define NCS groups in refinement? TLS refinement? Try >> different refinement programs? >> >> How big is the molecule? Was it solved by MR or experimental phasing? >> >> You can try superimposing A/B on C/D and refinement with tight NCS then >> adjust NCS restraints during model adjustments based on local differences >> or also see if phenix autobuild helps. >> >> Best, >> Debanu >> -- >> Debanu Das >> Accelero Biostructures >> >> >> On Jan 24, 2017, at 8:42 PM, Pooja Kesari <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Dear All, >> >> I have a 2.6 A resolution structure having four chains in an asymmetric >> unit. >> The chain A and B have density for almost all residues however we don't >> have proper residue density in chain C and D.What can be tried to build >> chain C and D ? >> >> >> >> Many Thanks >> Pooja >> >> > > > -- > Thanks & Regards, > Pooja Kesari > Research Scholar > Department Of Biotechnology > Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee > INDIA > >
