] Twin or underestimation of symmetry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dear Jeffrey,
how complete is you model, i.e. what is the ratio between the number
of atoms in the PDB file (without solvent/ ligands) and the expected
number of atoms as calculated from the sequence?
If a
of Tim Gruene
[t...@shelx.uni-ac.gwdg.de]
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 7:26 AM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Twin or underestimation of symmetry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dear Jeffrey,
how complete is you model, i.e. what is the ratio between the number
of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dear Jeffrey,
how complete is you model, i.e. what is the ratio between the number
of atoms in the PDB file (without solvent/ ligands) and the expected
number of atoms as calculated from the sequence?
If a substantial part of the molecule is disorder
This is a bit puzzling.
Sticking to point groups:
P3 & P6 are sub groups of P6/mmm so data which merges in P6/mmm will
always satisfy P3 and P6.
And twinning in P3 or P6 will make the data seem to have higher symmetry.
Four way twinning is unusual, but possible of course.
But if you really have t
Hi everyone,
I have a dataset that's been giving me some trouble and wanted to get your
ideas on the best way to proceed. The data extend to ~2.6 Å and scale
integrate/scale well in P622. According to Pointless, the symmetry is either
P622 or P6322, however, neither Molrep norm Phaser finds mol
