Thanks everyone for your suggestions, I have a lot to try!
Luke
On Tue, 23 Jul 2019 at 17:43, Eleanor Dodson
wrote:
> Well - there are lots of ways to proceed. It doesnt really matter for the
> crystallography theory if the exptl phases are from SAD or SIR. Just harder
> to handle in some
Nomenclature: pure SIR or MIR without anomalous has almost never been used,
since the beginning of macromolecular crystallography (why would you?). So
those of us who are lazy have often used SIR/MIR when we meant SIRAS/MIRAS: we
should be more precise.
Phil
Sent from my iPhone
> On 23 Jul
Oops George - you are correct..
I guess I never think of using either SIR or SAD phases without some
investigation into hand, and then only work with the better result.
The selection for SAD is rather straightforward - use SHELXE to do density
modification and if your sites are correct it is
I'm afraid that I have to disagree with Eleanor, a very rare event. Both
pure SIR and pure SAD give you only half of the necessary phase
information. The initial map will in both cases be a double image. One
then tries to improve it by density modification. For pure SAD one image
is positive
Well - there are lots of ways to proceed. It doesnt really matter for the
crystallography theory if the exptl phases are from SAD or SIR. Just harder
to handle in some software
I think I would start to refine the poor MR model with the xptl phases as
restraints.
REFMAC will do this. Then see if
Hi all,
I have collected native data and data on a bromide derivative of one of my
crystals, but have struggled to get a second derivative. I went through the
SIR pipeline as the anomalous signal from the Br was weak and have
generated some not-so-great phases. I have also attempted MR with the
