Dear Guangyu,

80% solvent is an awful lot. The first thing I would do is to check that there 
is not another protein molecule hiding somewhere in the asymmetric unit. What I 
usually do in these cases is to set a very large map radius (say 40-60 Å) and 
look at the complete solvent region to see if there are regions which are 
significantly more "noisy". I would also check that the crystal packing makes 
sense, e.g. continuous contacts in all three dimensions and no layers without 
any protein contacts.

Of course that best results are obtained by building and refining both crystal 
forms and cross-checking the results from one crystal form in the other crystal 
form.

Having said that, I have had some amazingly clear and unbiased electron density 
maps from low-resolution, high solvent crystals. It were molecular replacement 
structures, but due to the very strong solvent flattening effect, the phases 
looked like experimental ones. If your low-resolution structure genuinly has 
80% solvent, I would be tempted to start building in that map.

Best,
Herman


________________________________
From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Guangyu 
Zhu
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 1:28 AM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: [ccp4bb] Resolution and data/parameter ratio, which one is more 
important?

I have this question. For exmaple, a protein could be crystallized in two 
crystal forms. Two crystal form have same space group, and 1 molecule/asymm. 
One crystal form diffracts to 3A with 50% solvent; and the other diffracts to 
3.6A with 80% solvent. The cell volume of 3.6A crystal must be 5/2=2.5 times 
larger because of higher solvent content. If both data collecte to same 
completeness (say 100%), 3.6A data actually have higher data/parameter ratio, 
5/2/(3.6/3)**3= 1.45 times to 3A data. For refinement, better data/parameter 
should give more accurate structure, ie. 3.6A data is better. But higher 
resolution should give a better resolved electron density map. So which crystal 
form really give a better (more reliable and accurate) protein structure?

Reply via email to