Jun 2013 16:36:15 +0100
> From: theresah...@live.com
> Subject: [ccp4bb] Off-topic: NMR and crystallography
> To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
>
> Dear all
>
> A question for the cross-trained members of this forum - for small sized proteins, is NMR better than crystallography in te
Hi Theresa,
I think you have to be very careful with NMR of homo-oligomers, even if
they’re small proteins: the NMR model/structure (backbone only) of a small
integral membrane kinase was a huge effort -
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19556511
but is very different from the recently published
>Many NMR structures are more modelled than experimentally determined,
>the number of independent experimental
>data can be quite small. But the good news is that force fields and
>modelling software are improving.
>George
The quality of NMR structures/models depend heavily on the number of
exp
The title of my PhD thesis was "NMR of inorganic hydrides" but I soon
realized that I was out of my depth with
the theory so switched to something easier to understand (gas phase
electron diffraction). However this involved
taking the (somewhat dangerous) samples by train to Durward
Cruickshank
Hi Theresa,
Per your question about determination of membrane proteins - solution NMR is
quite capable of delivering structures of proteins in the presence of
detergents, such as the KcsA channel (see
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2242490/). You should note, though,
that many memb
Mensaje original-
De: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] En nombre de Ethan
Merritt
Enviado el: domingo, 09 de junio de 2013 20:13
Para: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Asunto: Re: [ccp4bb] Off-topic: NMR and crystallography
On Sunday, 09 June 2013, Theresa Hsu wrote:
> Dear all
&g
On Sunday, 09 June 2013, Theresa Hsu wrote:
> Dear all
>
> A question for the cross-trained members of this forum - for small sized
> proteins, is NMR better than crystallography in terms of data collection
> (having crystals in the first place) and data processing? How about membrane
> protein
I would agree with Mark.
It would be also good to state that neither of us is cross-trained, but are
one-trick dogs as far as NMR vs X-rays goes.
Still, I think that if you get any protein in good amounts, try to crystallize
it (there are even good facilities for that these days,
and funding t
Dear Theresa,
it depends what you consider as small. 50 residues are easy to do with NMR
but at 200 it will take some time (maybe 1-2 years to complete an
assignment and structure calculations). There are several difficulties in
NMR e.g. to do the correct alignment of monomers in oligomeric complex
@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Off-topic: NMR and crystallography
Well, if you do NMR you avoid the possible bottlenecks of having to obtain
well-diffracting crystals, and having to phase the protein (i.e. obtain SeMet
protein crystals or suitable heavy atom derivatives; or a suitable MR model
Well, if you do NMR you avoid the possible bottlenecks of having to obtain
well-diffracting crystals, and having to phase the protein (i.e. obtain SeMet
protein crystals or suitable heavy atom derivatives; or a suitable MR model).
But instead, you'll need to prepare labelled protein (15N and/or 1
Dear all
A question for the cross-trained members of this forum - for small sized
proteins, is NMR better than crystallography in terms of data collection
(having crystals in the first place) and data processing? How about membrane
proteins?
I would appreciate replies to the board, instead of
12 matches
Mail list logo
