When you say random, are you scrambling the assignments, changing the RDC values randomly by 6%, or changing their associated errors?
On Oct 24, 2016 3:30 PM, "Emmanouilidis, Leonidas" < [email protected]> wrote: > This is relative simple. > If one runs the tutorial-based gb1 RDC refinement protocol (refine.py) but > with hn RDCs values completely random (+6Hz noise to each), the outcome is > a seemingly successful refinement with no errors. > I did the test using just the hn RDCs. > > > > > > On Oct 24, 2016, at 10:11 PM, Charles Schwieters wrote: > > > > > Hello Leonidas-- > > > >> > >> while I am trying to refine a crystal structure with RDCs using the > >> refine.py script, I came across a weird result. > >> > >> I had near perfect correlation between observed and calculated RDCs > >> values, which was fishy. After addition of 5Hz systematic noise to all > >> RDCs, i still had perfect correlation and nice convergence with no > >> violations(!). Initially i thought that there was something wrong with > >> my experimental setup (since i only used RDCs+dihedrals restrains), > >> but I had exactly the same result when I changed also the gb1 tutorial > >> RDCs values. > >> So to sum it up, I used the tutorial script (refine.py) and input > >> files for RDC refinement, regardless of how much I alter the RDCs > >> values (i tried up to +6Hz noise addition) I get always nice > >> convergence, perfect correlation obs/calc with no violations. > >> > >> Is this how it should be or do I miss/mess somthing? > >> > > > > Not sure what's going on- we'll need more details. > > > > best regards-- > > Charles > > > _______________________________________________ > Xplor-nih mailing list > [email protected] > https://dcb.cit.nih.gov/mailman/listinfo/xplor-nih >
_______________________________________________ Xplor-nih mailing list [email protected] https://dcb.cit.nih.gov/mailman/listinfo/xplor-nih
