Dear All,
If you are interested in learning more about microseeding techniques,
please join TTP Labtech’s June 18th webinar with Dr Alexey Rak, Sanofi RD,
discussing high throughput seeding for the crystallization of small
molecules-protein complexes and antibody-antigen complexes. **
Register
Dear Pramod,
in addition to what has been said already, a few comments from my side. From
what you write, the first thing I would do is to check the basics:
-Is the protein that crystallized the protein you think it is? Plasmids do get
mixed-up and sometimes a more abundant natural protein with
Hi Pramod,
Refined LLG value of 1800 and R-factor of 46% at the end of the Phaser run
does indicate a good MR solution. Your maps also look quite good and some
positive density is visible near side chains. It would be helpful to see
your translational Z-scores for both molecules placed, which can
Thank you all for your kind reply..
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 7:02 PM, herman.schreu...@sanofi.com wrote:
**
Dear Faisal,
I might be missing something, but why not ask the annotator instead of the
bulletin board? He should know which value is meant. For me, a sigma
belongs to a set of
Dear Pramod,
It's difficult to be certain based on what you have posted but my best guess
would be problems with symmetry determination it's quite possible for pointless
to be fooled into assigning higher symmetry if some form of pseudo-symmetry is
present. What does the native Patterson look
Dear Ed,
AFAIK James Holton found the same issue, and a similar problem also existed in
XDSCONV. In my view, it is an example of the problem that most programs so far
have dealt with weak data in a suboptimal way, and have undergone little
testing with such data.
The latest version of XDSCONV
Hi Kay - could you elaborate on the latest version of XDSCONV has a fix
for it? (A look around The Google did not help me.)
Cheers
Frank
On 18/06/2013 11:38, Kay Diederichs wrote:
Dear Ed,
AFAIK James Holton found the same issue, and a similar problem also existed in
XDSCONV. In my view,
Hi Frank,
older versions of XDSCONV, for datasets with weak high-resolution data, printed
a long list starting with:
SUSPICIOUS REFLECTIONS NOT INCLUDED IN OUTPUT DATA SET
(at most 100 are listed below)
SUSPICIOUS REFLECTIONS NOT INCLUDED IN OUTPUT DATA SET
(at
Dear All,
I would like to inform you that a postdoctoral position is available at
the EMBL Hamburg Unit in the research group of Dmitri Svergun.
I attach a brief description of the Vacancy Notice below. Deadline for
application is 31st August 2013.
Detailed information can be found under :
Hi Ed,
Thanks for including the code block.
I've looked back over the FW paper, and the reason for the h-4.0 cutoff
is that the entire premise assumes that the true intensities are normally
distributed, and the formulation breaks down at that far out of an
outlier. For most datasets I haven't
Dear All,
A position has opened for an experienced macromolecular crystallographer to
work on immunological relevant targets.
(information on where to send your CV is at the bottom)
*
*
Detailed information can be found under :
Hello!
http://www.pnlamericas.com/nufv/kuws/boab/bksqp.html?ri=dsirq
reyhan muhammad
iue
Actually, Jeff, the problem goes even deeper than that. Have a look at these
Wilson plots:
http://bl831.als.lbl.gov/~jamesh/wilson/wilsons.png
For these plots I took Fs from a unit cell full of a random collection of
atoms, squared them, added Gaussian noise with RMS = 1, and then ran them back
Hi Jeff,
what I did in XDSCONV is to mitigate the numerical difficulties associated with
low h (called Score in XDSCONV output) values, and I removed the h -4
cutoff. The more negative h becomes, the closer to zero is the resulting
amplitude, so not applying a h cutoff makes sense (to me,
14 matches
Mail list logo
