Dear Colin,
Am 10.01.12 18:08, schrieb Colin Nave:
snip
3. The structure factors are lower for large unit cells. This will mean they
will be harder to detect, particularly if there is a high background.
/snip
But aren't the total structure factors of a unit cell the sum of the
atomic
On 11 Jan 2012, at 02:13, Artem Evdokimov wrote:
There are two sides to this qustion: the scientific one is actually easier to
answer in generic terms - but I also would like to point out the very recent
example of a mystery that required very high resoluton (and orthogonal
techniques) to
On 11 Jan 2012, at 11:36, Thomas Womack wrote:
On 11 Jan 2012, at 02:13, Artem Evdokimov wrote:
There are two sides to this qustion: the scientific one is actually easier
to answer in generic terms - but I also would like to point out the very
recent example of a mystery that required
leads to average
spot intensities being reduced by a factor of 8.
Thanks!
Colin
-Original Message-
From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Dirk
Kostrewa
Sent: 11 January 2012 09:15
To: ccp4bb
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Sub-angstrom resolution
Dear Colin
board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Ethan
Merritt
Sent: 09 January 2012 19:47
To: ccp4bb
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Sub-angstrom resolution
On Monday, January 09, 2012 11:37:23 am Ed Pozharski wrote:
On Mon, 2012-01-09 at 18:15 +, Theresa H. Hsu wrote:
Dear crystallographers
On Tue, 2012-01-10 at 09:04 +, Colin Nave wrote:
Yes, I think Ed's analysis is a bit misleading.
I apologize if I misled anyone. Re-reading my post, I can see that it
lacked precision. Indeed, in a perfect monocrystal all the molecules
are lined up perfectly, so I should have emphasized
I think once you start getting down to such small crystals, the spots
are not really important, as the pattern starts getting continuous.
Interestingly enough, I guess for single-molecule diffraction,
resolution is limited only by radiation damage, and not by any sort of
lattice disorder (or even
Message-
From: Ed Pozharski [mailto:epozh...@umaryland.edu]
Sent: 10 January 2012 16:09
To: Nave, Colin (DLSLtd,RAL,DIA)
Cc: ccp4bb
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Sub-angstrom resolution
On Tue, 2012-01-10 at 09:04 +, Colin Nave wrote:
Yes, I think Ed's analysis is a bit misleading.
I apologize if I
Thank you for the interesting replies so far.
Please let me ask a related question - at what resolution should we stop
efforts to get better diffracting crystals? Are there *biological* questions
that a model with 1.8-2.0 A resolution (with combination of complementary
methods like
On Tue, 2012-01-10 at 18:30 +, Theresa H. Hsu wrote:
Thank you for the interesting replies so far.
Please let me ask a related question - at what resolution should we stop
efforts to get better diffracting crystals? Are there *biological* questions
that a model with 1.8-2.0 A
One more to add to Ed's list:
highly accurate ultra-high resolution structures may allow calculation of
electrostatic potential around protein ligand binding site. There are
plenty of reference...
Pavel
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Ed Pozharski epozh...@umaryland.eduwrote:
On Tue,
There are two sides to this qustion: the scientific one is actually easier
to answer in generic terms - but I also would like to point out the very
recent example of a mystery that required very high resoluton (and
orthogonal techniques) to answer, namely the puzzle of the light atom in
the center
In theory, no: sub-angstrom resolution can be obtained for any and all
proteins, including membrane proteins, and for large complexes. In
reality, it becomes technically very difficult to achieve; you would need
ever-colder temperatures and ever-stronger irradiation sources.
P.S. In theory, the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
in my opinion the resolution limit of crystals from large complexes/
membrane proteins is more likely due to lattice imperfections and
long-range disorder, and cold neither cold temperatures nor stronger
radiation sources would circumvent this
The word theory in this thread/question has to be clarified better.
Jacob
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Tim Gruene t...@shelx.uni-ac.gwdg.de wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
in my opinion the resolution limit of crystals from large complexes/
membrane proteins is
On Mon, 2012-01-09 at 18:15 +, Theresa H. Hsu wrote:
Dear crystallographers
A theoretical question - can sub-angstrom resolution structures only be
obtained for a limited set of proteins? Is it impossible to achieve for
membrane proteins and large complexes?
Theresa
On the matter
On Monday, January 09, 2012 11:37:23 am Ed Pozharski wrote:
On Mon, 2012-01-09 at 18:15 +, Theresa H. Hsu wrote:
Dear crystallographers
A theoretical question - can sub-angstrom resolution structures only be
obtained for a limited set of proteins? Is it impossible to achieve for
17 matches
Mail list logo
