*** For details on how to be removed from this list visit the ***
*** CCP4 home page http://www.ccp4.ac.uk ***
Well-defined density for C-alpha and C-beta is sufficient DIRECT
evidence for making an informed guess as to where C-gamma is located.
That would be a "conclusion" or an "inference". The question is which
conclusions, or inferences, are considered valid given a set of
experimental data combined with prior knowledge, whether they should
be included in the model, and, if so, how they should be included.
Your scenario is not a good one, because when running gels, there is
usually little prior information that could elevate the confidence in
the conclusions drawn from a weak band. If there was solid external
support, however, the conclusions might very well be valid. Best - MM
On Jan 11, 2007, at 10:36 AM, Robert Immormino wrote:
The notion that everything about a model needs to be represented
by the
diffraction data, as has been demanded a lot during this thread,
is a very
poor one.
I apologize for been sensational, but...
Don't we demand the same from non-crystallographers with their assay?
What if someone told you that a band was actually on a gel, but was
just below detection levels? Or that the turn-over of an enzyme was
in the noise of the assay?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Mischa Machius, PhD
Associate Professor
UT Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas
5323 Harry Hines Blvd.; ND10.214A
Dallas, TX 75390-8816; U.S.A.
Tel: +1 214 645 6381
Fax: +1 214 645 6353
