Just to add some more information on the issue ... Take also a look at the following article:
"Does NMR mean "not for molecular replacement"? Using NMR-based search models to solve protein crystal structures" Chen YW, Dodson EJ, Kleywegt GJ. Structure (2000) 8, 213-220 Martin _________________________________________ Dr. Martin Martinez-Ripoll Research Professor xmar...@iqfr.csic.es Department of Crystallography & Structural Biology www.xtal.iqfr.csic.es Telf.: +34 917459550 Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas Spanish National Research Council -----Mensaje original----- De: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] En nombre de Ethan Merritt Enviado el: domingo, 09 de junio de 2013 20:13 Para: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK Asunto: Re: [ccp4bb] Off-topic: NMR and crystallography On Sunday, 09 June 2013, Theresa Hsu wrote: > Dear all > > A question for the cross-trained members of this forum - for small sized > proteins, is NMR better than crystallography in terms of data collection > (having crystals in the first place) and data processing? How about membrane > proteins? A relevant study is the comparison by Yee et al (2005) JACS 127:16512. <http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ja053565+> They tried to solve 263 small proteins using both NMR and crystallography. 43 only worked for NMR 43 only worked for X-ray 21 could be solved either way So you could say it was a toss-up, but consider that - As the size gets larger, NMR becomes increasingly impractical - 156 (60%) weren't solved by either NMR or crystallography. What is the relative cost of the failed attempt? Ethan
