There are two sides to this qustion: the scientific one is actually easier to answer in generic terms - but I also would like to point out the very recent example of a mystery that required very high resoluton (and orthogonal techniques) to answer, namely the puzzle of the light atom in the center of the mofe nitrogenase protein. Highly recommended reading. At any rate the second side of this question is the logistics and cost\benefit ratio of pursuing ever higher resoluton. In most 'relatively simple' cases a solid 3A structure goes a long way towards answering a biological question, provided that additional techniques generate complmentary data. With the progress made in the area of modeling and simulation the value of mid-res structures grows since they now may be used as high quality restraints for modeling. So in each individual case we have to evaluate the particulars.... and if we choose not to pursue higher resolution, we must accept the associated risks and move on :-)
Artem On Jan 10, 2012 12:31 PM, "Theresa H. Hsu" <theresah...@live.com> wrote: > Thank you for the interesting replies so far. > > Please let me ask a related question - at what resolution should we stop > efforts to get better diffracting crystals? Are there *biological* > questions that a model with 1.8-2.0 A resolution (with combination of > complementary methods like spectroscopy) cannot answer than a model with < > 1 A? > > Theresa >
