Dear Tommi, On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 10:59:52AM +0000, Kajander, Tommi A wrote: > Dear Eleanor, I will try that, just wondering if excluding solvent masking > completely doenst have detrimental effect on > the overall quality of the map?
You might want to look into using the so-called "missing atom channel" in BUSTER, which allows the scaling to use three components (current model, bulk solvent and missing atoms). The current version of BUSTER makes it easy to define such a uniform prior (see 'refine -M list'): please let me know (maybe off-list) if you want some pointers/help with this. Cheers Clemens > On 10 February 2017 at 09:37, Kajander, Tommi A > <tommi.kajan...@helsinki.fi<mailto:tommi.kajan...@helsinki.fi>> wrote: > Hi All, > > Was there a convenient way to make a solvent mask for a region with a model > - its been a while - and use that to generate maps > (i have a domain that is only partially visible, could not be found be > molecular replacement), its there though. > > Could be that its not well ordered, but I was wondering if the bulk solvent > masking is just wiping it out. (basicly something like half a domain, e.g. > half of > individual beta-strands, are missing.) resolution is bit limited (at best 3 > Å) so automated building and refinement doesnt work terribly well. > > I could just place a model there and make a mask somewhere and include in map > calculation? > > Thanks for suggestions, > tommi -- *-------------------------------------------------------------- * Clemens Vonrhein, Ph.D. vonrhein AT GlobalPhasing DOT com * Global Phasing Ltd., Sheraton House, Castle Park * Cambridge CB3 0AX, UK www.globalphasing.com *--------------------------------------------------------------
