might want to try the Buster
> program.
>
> Best regards,
> Herman
>
> --
> *From:* CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] *On Behalf Of
> *Israel
> Sanchez
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 04, 2012 9:17 PM
> *To:* CCP4BB@JISCM
btw, this thread has one of my favorite titles ever...
JPK
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 4:11 AM, Eleanor Dodson wrote:
> This is interesting. In principle m and D should provide an optimum map,
> and at high resolution they do a reasonable job.
> The answer about occupancy is a good point.
>
> You do
This is interesting. In principle m and D should provide an optimum map, and
at high resolution they do a reasonable job.
The answer about occupancy is a good point.
You don't say what resolution your data is at, but maybe it is rather low?
I suspect that below ~ 3A the estimates of both m and
program.
Best regards,
Herman
From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On
Behalf Of Israel Sanchez
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 9:17 PM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: [ccp4bb] On maps and doubts
Try GraphEnt but you might have to recompile it for your size of proteins. That
has helped me several times to see something that was barely there.
Here's the link for the 'click-generation':
http://utopia.duth.gr/~glykos/graphent.html
Jürgen
..
Jürgen Bosch
Johns Hopkins Un
Hello everyone,
I would like to share my experience with one dataset and request some
advice on which is the best way to prove a conformational change seen in a
density map.
The first issue arose when we were looking for an extra ribosomal factor
added to a crystalized ribosome. After careful dat
