Dear All,
We have software engineer posts open at the moment at Diamond Light Source in
the MX data acquisition team (i.e. beamline user software) - details at
http://www.diamond.ac.uk/Careers/Vacancies/All/119_17_CH.html
It's an exiting time at the moment, with new beamlines being built, incre
Ethan and I apparently agree that anomalous scattering is "normal"
and Friedel's Law is just an approximation. I'll presume that your
"unique" is assuming otherwise and your 62,500 reflections only include
half of reciprocal space. The full sphere of data would include 125,000
reflections. Si
On Friday, 10 November 2017 05:29:09 Keller, Jacob wrote:
> >>62500 is < 40^3, so ±20 indices on each axis.
> 50Å / 20 = 2.5Å, so not quite 2.5Å resolution
>
> Nice--thanks for calculating that. Couldn't remember how to do it off-hand,
> and I guess my over-estimate comes from most protein cryst
>>62500 is < 40^3, so ±20 indices on each axis.
50Å / 20 = 2.5Å, so not quite 2.5Å resolution
Nice--thanks for calculating that. Couldn't remember how to do it off-hand, and
I guess my over-estimate comes from most protein crystals having some symmetry.
I don't really think it affects the quest
On Friday, 10 November 2017 00:10:22 Keller, Jacob wrote:
> Dear Crystallographers,
>
> I have been considering a thought-experiment of sorts for a while, and wonder
> what you will think about it:
>
> Consider a diffraction data set which contains 62,500 unique reflections from
> a 50 x 50 x 5
As Eleanor and Gerard explained - perhaps there is a reason that some frames
are really bad.
But it could just as well be that the crystal diffracts anisotropically, and
those frames with high Rmerge correspond to a weak region of reciprocal space.
In this case, it would be quite counterproduct
If you output an mmCIF file directly from refmac this avoids the TER
record problem.
just add this
"pdbout format mmcif"
to your refmac command and it will output an mmCIF which can be used
directly for deposition to the PDB
see https://www.wwpdb.org/deposition/preparing-pdbx-mmcif-files
R
Dear Charles,
Eleanor is right: look at the images, and look also at the
processing output produced by XDS. If you find that too ASCII-looking,
then look at the graphs produced from these numbers by programs like
XDSGUI, XDSAPP and others. Our own autoPROC produces an extensive html
output (c
I think you need to look at the images.
We found one case where the overall Rmerge didnt look too bad but there
were horrendous streaks across many images. No idea what had happened but
other crystals from the same batch were much better.
Eleanor
On 9 November 2017 at 19:26, CPMAS Chen wrote:
>
That is right. I had the data already and did not want to throw it away.
On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Eleanor Dodson
wrote:
> I think you need to worry about why that has happened, rather than get an
> automated rejection criteria!
> There must be some problem in the data collection for that
I think you need to worry about why that has happened, rather than get an
automated rejection criteria!
There must be some problem in the data collection for that to happen..
Eleanor
On 9 November 2017 at 19:04, CPMAS Chen wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Is there a way to reject diffraction images based o
Hi All,
Is there a way to reject diffraction images based on Rmerge?
When I processed my data with XDS, I use AIMLESS in CCP4 to get merged,
truncated data. However, there is quite some images with high Rmerge, say
larger than 1. Is there a keyword I can use to reject these images based a
Rmerge
I agree with Phil. A P2 crystal with nearly perfect
noncrystallographic translational symmetry (~1/2,~1/2,0) will look like
a C2 cell with twice the length along a and b and weak spots between the
indexed spots. Look for those spots on your "C2" images.
Dale Tronrud
On 11/9/2017 3:06 AM, Phi
The cells are related. You double 2 axes, giving 4x the P2 volume (not double).
You gain a C (translational centering in the ab plane) so you have 2x the asu
content in C2.
Pointless tells you about the space group based on the indexed reflections,
so you might want to look at the images to decide
Dear Markus,
I have seen something similar before, I think it was only
one cell dimension that was changing (and not the lattice type), but it could
double or triple the cell edge, crystals grown in very similar conditions,
impossible to tell from morphology what the cell w
You should look critically at the indexing of the images for both cases. Does
the lattice interpret all spots, or are half of them missing
> On 9 Nov 2017, at 10:02, Markus Heckmann wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>> From a small protein, gives crystals P2 with cell
> Cell 53.16 65.73 72.89
Dear Mark,
It does happen, even that two crystals from the same drop (everything
identical) have different space groups.
Best,
Herman
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] Im Auftrag von Markus
Heckmann
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 9. November 2017
Dear all,
we crystallized a small protein, that gives crystals P2 with cell
Cell 53.16 65.73 72.8990 110.94 90
(has 3 molecules in the asymmetric unit). Tested with pointless. Does
not give any other possibility.
The other crystal form of the same protein, similar conditions:
Dear all,
>From a small protein, gives crystals P2 with cell
Cell 53.16 65.73 72.8990 110.94 90
(has 3 molecules in the asymmetric unit). Tested with pointless. Does
not give any other possibility.
Another crystal if the same protein, similar conditions:
C2
Cell 109.14 1
Dear all
I am looking for a person with a structural biology/bioinformatics background
and software development experience to work on an exciting joint project with
Garib Murshudov’s group (MRC-LMB) to develop structural data-mining of 3DEM
maps in EMDB with the aim of deriving canonical 3D den
20 matches
Mail list logo
