Quick navigation:        Home   |    Site Map   ||    References   |    Biography   ||    Copyright   |    Other copyright   |    Contact us   |   
Protein structure
 

Re: [ccp4bb] just how bad can phases be and still help
 

Basic tutorials: 		 
 

CCP4bb navigation

CCP4bb <-- 2007 <-- September 2007 <-- 07 September 2007
Previous message:
Subject: Re: MS for verification of protein constructs
From: James Whisstock James {- dot -} Whisstock {- at -} MED {- dot -} MONASH {- dot -} EDU {- dot -} AU
Date: 2007-09-05 		Next message:
Subject: Re: few organophophates coordiantes
From: vijay kumar vijay_bioinfo {- at -} YAHOO {- dot -} COM
Date: 2007-09-07


Subject: Re: just how bad can phases be and still help
From: "Bryan W {- dot -} Lepore" bryanlepore {- at -} MAIL {- dot -} UTEXAS {- dot -} EDU
Date: 2007-09-07
On Thu, 6 Sep 2007, William Scott wrote:
> I think the reason it works is because the lack of closure error is
> nearly random and the signal is not

interesting notion

> Low initial FOM in many senses are good [..] because density
> modification has more latitude

my understanding was that density modification is designed to make the FOM
optimal, almost 1.0, always ; as such, the only discrimination that
density modification provides is map interpretation, and at least not the
_modified_ FOM.

-bryan

CCP4bb navigation

CCP4bb <-- 2007 <-- September 2007 <-- 07 September 2007
Previous message:
Subject: Re: MS for verification of protein constructs
From: James Whisstock James {- dot -} Whisstock {- at -} MED {- dot -} MONASH {- dot -} EDU {- dot -} AU
Date: 2007-09-05 		Next message:
Subject: Re: few organophophates coordiantes
From: vijay kumar vijay_bioinfo {- at -} YAHOO {- dot -} COM
Date: 2007-09-07


ProteinCrystallography.org: Copyright 2006-2007 by Quid United Ltd