Ed
The crystal size form factor will change the intensity of each spot so that 
instead of being a sharp maximum it will have a sinx/x behaviour. This will 
occur for each spot independently of resolution. There is a very good 
illustration of this in the paper referred to by Ethan where the sin(x)/x type 
fringes join up the spots so one can count the number of unit cells.

One doesn't see this normally because either one has lots of blocks of 
different sizes or, if there is just one block, the coherent length of the 
incident beam is smaller than the block size. Even if one satisfied the 
coherence condition, a very high resolution detector would be required (matched 
to the necessary beam divergence) for a normal size crystal.

I had a paper in 1999 describing some of these effects. I used the term sinc(x) 
as an alternative to sin(x)/x. This got changed to sine in the editing process 
but wasn't visible on the low resolution fax used to send the proofs (the old 
days!). I couldn't be bothered to produce a correction but have been waiting 
for 13 years for someone to point out this error. A small prize was waiting but 
it is too late now.

Of relevance to the initial question, one has to distinguish between short 
range and long range disorder. It is true that larger molecules will not pack 
as well as Crambin. There was some discussion of this at the CCP4 study weekend 
with issues such as the number of contacts between protein molecules as a 
function of their surface area. However, if the larger molecules maintain order 
over several unit cells, diffraction spots will still occur to high resolution. 
The reason that crystals of these larger molecules generally don't diffract to 
high resolution could be due to
1. The lack of contact between molecules and the larger solvent volumes mean 
that both the solvent and the protein (perhaps affected by the disordered 
solvent) will have short range disorder (i.e. not correlated between unit 
cells). This will lead to increased B factors.
2. Fewer strong contacts will lead to a variety of effects such as variation in 
unit cell size, smaller number of unit cells per block or angular variation 
between blocks. This longer range disorder will lead to increased spot sizes so 
that the spot eventually disappears below the background. James Holton has 
demonstrated that the background is the limiting factor for high resolution 
data collection.
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.

Well at least at the end there were some attempted answers to the original post.

Cheers
  Colin

-----Original 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 +0000, 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 rather that the culprit is the decay of 
correlation between atomic positions.  It is still a bit counterintuitive that 
a crystal can diffract beyond the resolution seemingly allowed by possible 
bragg planes.  Shouldn't the "crystal size" formfactor introduce something akin 
to sinx/x that will drive intensity rapidly down past the "bragg limit"?  Oh 
well.

On a second thought, maybe the unit cell size does not matter directly.
What matters perhaps is how quickly the disorder accumulates over distance, and 
that should be more pronounced for larger molecules.  Thus the problem is that 
larger molecules cannot pack as well as, say, crambin.

On empirical side, the largest molecule currently in the PDB with d<1A is 3ju4, 
0.98A and ~75kDa.

See the distribution of sizes of "subangstrom" structures here.

http://tinyurl.com/8yhbcvk

BTW, the 3ju4 is reported on EDS as "unreliable".  Shall comment in the other 
thread.

Cheers,

Ed.

--
Oh, suddenly throwing a giraffe into a volcano to make water is crazy?
                                                Julian, King of Lemurs

Reply via email to