;
To: "e dodson"
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 11:30:17 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] LESS MR pleae.. 1.95A, different phase
A question regarding the plea for less MR (which I support):
There have been several recent instances in which I have used the solution of
model is the same.
Dale Tronrud
On 11/21/11 14:47, Michael Thompson wrote:
> - Forwarded Message -
> From: "Michael Thompson"
> To: "e dodson"
> Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 11:30:17 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
> Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] LESS
nt: Monday, November 21, 2011 11:30:17 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
> Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] LESS MR pleae.. 1.95A, different phase
>
> A question regarding the plea for less MR (which I support):
>
> There have been several recent instances in which I have used the solution
> of
- Forwarded Message -
From: "Michael Thompson"
To: "e dodson"
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 11:30:17 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] LESS MR pleae.. 1.95A, different phase
A question regarding the plea for less MR (which I support):
The
1:02 PM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] LESS MR pleae.. 1.95A, different phase
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 10:23 AM, Eleanor Dodson wrote:
> Just a plea for less molecular replacement.
>
> If you get a new crystal of a known protein with the same cell dimension as
> youur
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 10:23 AM, Eleanor Dodson wrote:
> Just a plea for less molecular replacement.
>
> If you get a new crystal of a known protein with the same cell dimension as
> youur old crystal, the most likely scenario is that it has the same group,
> and you really should not try MR - u
Just a plea for less molecular replacement.
If you get a new crystal of a known protein with the same cell
dimension as youur old crystal, the most likely scenario is that it has
the same group, and you really should not try MR - use the previous
solution as input to do rigid body refinement,
