This is absolutely correct - in the analysis you present, the
non-anomalous scattering drops with resolution, but the anomalous part
does not. And since counting noise varies with intensity, we should
actually be better off at high resolution, since there is less
non-anomalous scattering to
Kevin Cowtan wrote:
This is absolutely correct - in the analysis you present, the
non-anomalous scattering drops with resolution, but the anomalous part
does not. And since counting noise varies with intensity, we should
actually be better off at high resolution, since there is less
Marc SCHILTZ wrote:
I agree with everything but would like to add the following: if we
assume an overall atomic displacement parameter, the drop-off in both
the anomalous and non-anomalous scattering is the same. Therefore, the
ratio of anomalous differences over mean intensity (which is what
Sorry I don't have instant access to Acta A here so can't comment in the
light of the Flack Shmueli paper. But it seems to me that Kevin's
point is still valid, regardless of whether or not the anomalously
scattering atoms have different ADPs from the average or not. I agree
that this would
Kevin Cowtan wrote:
Marc SCHILTZ wrote:
I agree with everything but would like to add the following: if we
assume an overall atomic displacement parameter, the drop-off in both
the anomalous and non-anomalous scattering is the same. Therefore, the
ratio of anomalous differences over mean
The new OS X 10.5.7 update downgrades your X11 to 2.1.6. There is a new
X11 update, 2.3.3, only for 10.5.7 users.
It might be prudent to update to 10.5.7 and then xquartz 2.3.3, before
reporting that coot or something else is suddenly broken.
As usual, very annoying...
Engin
My X11 is still on 2.3.1 after updating to 10.5.7 (I could never get
X11 2.3.2 to work properly)
Coot fine
Phil
On 13 May 2009, at 17:25, Engin Ozkan wrote:
The new OS X 10.5.7 update downgrades your X11 to 2.1.6. There is a
new X11 update, 2.3.3, only for 10.5.7 users.
It might be
The reason is that you've missed out one important term: the atomic
displacement parameters (B-factors), which describe a combination of
thermal motion and positional disorder between unit cells.
A somewhat niggling point: isn't it true that the thermal motion is
insignificant at 100K? Does
On Wednesday 13 May 2009 09:30:06 Jacob Keller wrote:
The reason is that you've missed out one important term: the atomic
displacement parameters (B-factors), which describe a combination of
thermal motion and positional disorder between unit cells.
A somewhat niggling point: isn't it
Greg Petsko's group did something like this about a billion years ago
(yet, strangely, I remember the paper, even though I'd be stumped if
you asked me what I had for breakfast...)
They covered the range from room temp down to very cold, using
different cryoprotectants (importantly, they
This is posted as a favor for a collaborator, please do not respond to
me but directly to Neal Alto.
---
A postdoctoral research position is available in the laboratory of
So what is the approximate percent contribution of the
*temperature-dependent* b-factor at 100K, for an average crystal, or how to
determine such? In other words, if I have a crystal with an avg B of 20,
when I go from 100K to 0K, how much lower will it drop? I recall seeing
papers exploring
I was so looking forward to being able to report that Apple's recent 600
MB bugfix had got the jitters out of PyMOL on an external screen, but
no. It still flickers like a German disco in the 90s when I ray trace.
X11 2.4. should be coming out soon. There's always hope.
Andreas
Engin
A postdoctoral position is available at the Department of Pharmacology, UT
Southwestern
Medical Center at Dallas, TX. Our lab uses both NMR and X-ray crystallography
to
characterize the atomic structures of macromolecules involved in cancer-related
signaling
pathways. We are also
Dear Rafal,
I'm developing a graphical tool to construct RNA 3D models. You can find all
the details at this address: http://www.bioinformatics.org/assemble/
It is open-source. At now, i'm searching beta-testers before the official
1.0 release. If you're interested, I will send you an email
On Wednesday 13 May 2009 10:22:54 Patrick Loll wrote:
Greg Petsko's group did something like this about a billion years ago
(yet, strangely, I remember the paper, even though I'd be stumped if
you asked me what I had for breakfast...)
They covered the range from room temp down to very
16 matches
Mail list logo
