Hi Marcelo
One thing to try if you have access to a microfocus beamline would be to try to
collect data from part of the crystal and hope that you hit a single lattice
with the beam. Sometimes the different lattices are in different parts of the
physical object in the beam. Recollecting the
You could try the dials data processing - it tries to address the problems
of multiple lattices..
Eleanor
On 13 August 2018 at 08:59, Paul Adams wrote:
> Hi Marcelo,
>
> based on this image it looks like you have multiple (two) lattices,
> which puts spots very close together. This could be
Hi Marcelo,
based on this image it looks like you have multiple (two) lattices, which
puts spots very close together. This could be a split crystal as Eleanor
suggested, or a feature of the way the crystals grow. It seems unlikely that
you’d be able to integrate these lattices well, given
Hi,
Looking at the pointless logfile for P222, there’s excellent evidence for a
2(1) screw along the shortest and longest cell edges as Eleanor says, which
would make the space group P 21 2 21 for the data set used in the Phaser run
with the data merged in P222. The merging statistics are
Marcelo - there is something very wrong with the data. You dont to
reprocess in other space groups - the P2/mmm symmetry looks convincing but
PHASER says there are 3500 rejections! That is an awful lot - 10 is a more
normal value.
I cant see the image clearly but something is causing problems.
This MR looks good to me, but there are serious flaws with the data. Your
secon moment plot from the aimless log has most spectacular spikes which
are always a BAD THING, and the Wilson plot is not very smooth either..
As Randy says, try to sort those problems out first.
Then you have this
Actually Marcelo - Refinement to an R of 41% is pretty good for an MR
solution!
On 10 August 2018 at 18:42, Eleanor Dodson
wrote:
> Can you attach the refinement log?
>
> Eleanor
>
> On 10 August 2018 at 16:57, Marcelo Liberato
> wrote:
>
>> Dear Randy,
>>
>> Thank you very much for
Can you attach the refinement log?
Eleanor
On 10 August 2018 at 16:57, Marcelo Liberato
wrote:
> Dear Randy,
>
> Thank you very much for answering. I followed your suggestions but,
> unfortunately, I couldn't get a reasonable electron density map after MR
> and refinement.
>
>
> First I would
Dear Randy,
Thank you very much for answering. I followed your suggestions but,
unfortunately, I couldn't get a reasonable electron density map after MR
and refinement.
First I would look at the data to see if you have ice rings, because the
> peak in mean intensity and second moment of the
Dear Marcelo,
First I would look at the data to see if you have ice rings, because the peak
in mean intensity and second moment of the intensity at about 2.25A resolution
suggests an ice ring problem. If so, you should make sure you don't
contaminate the data with spurious large intensities.
10 matches
Mail list logo
