Oh dear.

You definitely cannot de-twin a dataset by mergeing it with a non-twinned dataset! And if the twin fraction of your synchrotron set is much greater than 0.3 then it is unlikely that you will be able to use the anomalous differences to solve the phase problem.

If I were you, I would focus on the non-twinned crystal system. You CAN average anomalous differences across different crystals, provided they are reasonably isomorphous. http://dx.doi.org/10.1107/S0907444910046573

And I should add the caveat that twinning is equivalent to "non-isomorphism" until after you have solved the structure because it dramatically changes the intensity you have available for any given hkl index.

-James Holton
MAD Scientist

On 1/19/2012 8:20 AM, arka chakraborty wrote:
Hi all,

Thanks for providing multiple solutions to my problem. Prof . Tim Gruene and Prof. James Holton provided some nice solutions. However since the data are collected from different crystals, I am not sure whether I can do MAD phasing. My aim is to merge the two data-sets to circumvent the problem posed by the fact that the synchroton data is twinned. So maybe merging the data sets will provide better phases from SAD phasing? My main concern was how to do scaling adjustments before using the data-sets together.

Thanking you,

Regards,

ARKO

On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 1:46 AM, Soisson, Stephen M <stephen_sois...@merck.com <mailto:stephen_sois...@merck.com>> wrote:

    But if we were to follow that convention we would have been stuck
    with Multi-wavelength Resonant Diffraction Experimental Results,
    or, quite simply, MuRDER.



    -----Original Message-----
    From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
    <mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK>] On Behalf Of Jacob Keller
    Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 3:13 PM
    To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK <mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
    Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Merging data collected at two different
    wavelength

    This begs the question* whether you want the lemmings to understand
    you. One theory of language, gotten more or less from Strunk and
    White's Elements of Style, is that the most important feature of
    language is its transparency to the underlying thoughts. Bad language
    breaks the transparency, reminds you that you are reading and not
    simply thinking the thoughts of the author, who should also usually be
    invisible. Bad writing calls attention to itself and to the author,
    whereas good writing guides the thoughts of the reader unnoticeably.
    For Strunk and White, it seems that all rules of writing follow this
    principle, and it seems to be the right way to think about language.
    So, conventions, even when somewhat inaccurate, are important in that
    they are often more transparent, and the reader does not get stuck on
    them.

    Anyway, a case in point of lemmings is that once Wayne Hendrickson
    himself suggested that the term anomalous be decommissioned in favor
    of "resonant." I don't hear any non-lemmings jumping on that
    bandwagon...

    JPK

    *Is this the right use of "beg the question?"





    On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Phoebe Rice <pr...@uchicago.edu
    <mailto:pr...@uchicago.edu>> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Can I be dogmatic about this ?
    >>
    >>I wish you could, but I don't think so, because even though those
    >>sources call it that, others don't. I agree with your thinking, but
    >>usage is usage.
    >
    > And 10,000 lemmings can't be wrong?



    --
    *******************************************
    Jacob Pearson Keller
    Northwestern University
    Medical Scientist Training Program
    email: j-kell...@northwestern.edu <mailto:j-kell...@northwestern.edu>
    *******************************************
    Notice:  This e-mail message, together with any attachments, contains
    information of Merck & Co., Inc. (One Merck Drive, Whitehouse Station,
    New Jersey, USA 08889), and/or its affiliates Direct contact
    information
    for affiliates is available at
    http://www.merck.com/contact/contacts.html) that may be confidential,
    proprietary copyrighted and/or legally privileged. It is intended
    solely
    for the use of the individual or entity named on this message. If
    you are
    not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error,
    please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete it from
    your system.




--

/ARKA CHAKRABORTY/
/CAS in Crystallography and Biophysics/
/University of Madras/
/Chennai,India/


Reply via email to