On Jan 18, 2012, at 10:20 AM, Tim Gruene wrote: > Comments on the comments ;-):
Ditto > >> [...] >> >> By the way, I wouldn't use "MAD" to describe the mergeing of >> non-isomorphous datasets. > I agree, neither would I. > Just to be on the save side and avoid confusion by less experienced > readers of the list: I used the term MAD because there are two data sets > collected at two different wavelenghts, both of which should give rise > to a measurable anomalous signal from the Co in the sample. > Using the terms 'MAD' and 'SAD' have always been confusing to me when considering more complex phasing cases. What happens if you have intrinsic Zn's, collect a 3wvl experiment and then derivatize it with SeMet or a heavy atom? Or the MAD+native scenario (SHARP) ? Instead of using MAD/SAD nomenclature I favor explicitly stating whether dispersive/anomalous/isomorphous differences (and what heavy atoms for each ) were used in phasing. Aren't analyzing the differences (independent of source) the important bit anyway? F --------------------------------------------- Francis E. Reyes M.Sc. 215 UCB University of Colorado at Boulder
