[ccp4bb] opinion : phaser RMSD vis-a-vis LLG, Z-score

- Protein crystallography

Main steps:

- Protein purification
- Crystallisation

Special:

- Programs for crystallography
- X-ray detectors

Basic tutorials:

   - Chemistry
   - Protein
   - Peptide
   - Amino Acids

Xtal community:

- CCP4BB

CCP4bb navigation

CCP4bb <-- 1999 <-- November 1999 <-- 30 November 1999

Previous message:
Subject: PhD student position, Turku, Finland
From: Tassos Papageorgiou apapageo {- at -} BTK {- dot -} UTU {- dot -} FI
Date: 2007-11-02

Next message:
Subject: Ni-NTA purifications contaminated with E coli Glucosamine-fructose-6-phosphate aminotransferase
From: Ailong Ke ak425 {- at -} CORNELL {- dot -} EDU
Date: 2007-11-02

Subject: opinion : phaser RMSD vis-a-vis LLG, Z-score
From: "Bryan W {- dot -} Lepore" bryanlepore {- at -} MAIL {- dot -} UTEXAS {- dot -} EDU
Date: 2007-11-02

neglecting e-density, packing, etc. - what matters most to people when
running phaser - LLG or Z-score? in what function (RF, TF)?

further, if you 'refine' the RMSD to find the best RMSD, what is the more
robust indicator - LLG or Z-score?

lastly - is it better to have a high LLG/Z-score with poor discrimination
from other peaks or the other way around?

-bryan

CCP4bb navigation

CCP4bb <-- 1999 <-- November 1999 <-- 30 November 1999

Previous message:
Subject: PhD student position, Turku, Finland
From: Tassos Papageorgiou apapageo {- at -} BTK {- dot -} UTU {- dot -} FI
Date: 2007-11-02

Next message:
Subject: Ni-NTA purifications contaminated with E coli Glucosamine-fructose-6-phosphate aminotransferase
From: Ailong Ke ak425 {- at -} CORNELL {- dot -} EDU
Date: 2007-11-02