Does this mean that, when placing the first (or only) copy of a model,
the score will not be elevated by presence of tNCS (Unless the model contains
domains separated by more or less exactly the distance of the tNCS vector)?
(In general, using a generic MR program that does not correct for TNS.)
S
Dear Yurong,
I just wanted to check that you're using an up-to-date version of Phaser, which
will account for the presence of translational NCS (tNCS). With older versions
of Phaser, you could get apparent solutions that were incorrect but would give
a high LLG just because they satisfied the
2 12:49 PM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: [ccp4bb] Pseudo translational symmetry Problem or Wrong
Spacegroup
Dear All,
Recently, I collected a dataset of a protein-DNA complex and indexed in
spacegroup P212121 to 3.4 Å. However, Phenix.
Dear All,
Recently, I collected a dataset of a protein-DNA complex and indexed in
spacegroup P212121 to 3.4 Å. However, Phenix.Xtriage indicated the presence
of a very high pseudotranslational symmetry peak. I scaled the data in
spacegroup P222. When I used the protein heterotetramer as sear
Brilliant illustration - even in 3D!
eleanor
On 3 Aug 2012, at 14:01, Laurie Betts wrote:
> I couldn't resist this shot. It might not make the cut.but
>
>
"Some people might squawk at 2MB attachments on a BB..."
Surely that is bark :)
One way to address this would be to provide a link to the image on the
web, rather than including it as an attachment.
On 08/03/12 14:04, Francis E Reyes wrote:
Some people might squawk at 2MB attachments on a BB...
But that made my day..
Thanks!
On Aug 3, 2012, at 6:01 AM, Laurie Betts w
Some people might squawk at 2MB attachments on a BB...
But that made my day..
Thanks!
On Aug 3, 2012, at 6:01 AM, Laurie Betts wrote:
> I couldn't resist this shot. It might not make the cut.but
>
>
What symmetry operator is that towel indicating? Must be 24-fold rotational
NCS?
JPK
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Bosch, Juergen wrote:
> Thank Laurie,
>
> what's that domain dangling off your DOG-domain ? And have you checked if
> the off-origin peak is indeed the same height as the origin
Thank Laurie,
what's that domain dangling off your DOG-domain ? And have you checked if the
off-origin peak is indeed the same height as the origin peak ?
May I include your slide in my class ?
Jürgen
On Aug 3, 2012, at 9:01 AM, Laurie Betts wrote:
I couldn't resist this shot. It might not
Oops - sorry to mislead you.
Yes - you are absolutely right..
Eleanor
ale...@pasteur.fr wrote:
Just a small comment on Eleanor's instructive advices :
...
If your original structure has cell
(a2= 47.3, b2=58.9, c2=67.6) and angles (alpha2=90, beta2=99.2, gamma2=90)
and the second cell i
Just a small comment on Eleanor's instructive advices :
> ...
> If your original structure has cell
>
> (a2= 47.3, b2=58.9, c2=67.6) and angles (alpha2=90, beta2=99.2, gamma2=90)
>
> and the second cell is
> (a1=67.5, b1=58.8, c1=98.9) and angles (alpha1=90, beta1=101.5, gamma1=90)
> ...
> I woul
First - there doesnt seem much to worry about. The Rs will be higher
than usual when you have a strong pseudo-translation vector. There are
many weak observations for the h k l=2n+1 reflections.
But in cases like this is is very helpful to force the same indexing on
all your different data set
Hi all,
I am trying to refine a structure to about 2.0A. Indexing in HKL2000 indicates
the protein crystallized in P2 with unit cell lengths (a1=67.5, b1=58.8,
c1=98.9) and angles (alpha1=90, beta1=101.5, gamma1=90). Molecular replacement
with Phaser yields a solution in P1 21 1 with four mol
14 matches
Mail list logo
