Thank you all for the thoughtful replies.
@Andrew:
I did not know about that nmrPipe command, thank you. Unfortunately, even a
zeroed spectrum would still require work "outside" of CCPN and use the same
amount of disk space. With my workaround of loading an actual spectrum, I
simply set the base contour level to an impossibly high value and/or uncheck
showing both positive and negative contours. That way I have an empty
"canvas" onto which to "stick" peak coordinates.
When you refer to a "true synthetic spectrum" do you mean generating actual
(Lorentzian?) peak shapes based on height/volume/linewidth? That sounds
really cool! It would also be really useful to compare artificial and actual
NOESY-type spectra. I'm probably asking way too much now, but being able to
easily generate a "true" synthetic NOESY spectrum from a deposited NMR
structure and its corresponding BMRB shift list would be awesome!
@Rasmus
Of course you are right that a "proper" spectrum requires all the
acquisition parameters. What I am trying to do is something much more quick
'n' dirty, namely to simply visualize a bunch of chemical shifts by mapping
them onto an N-dimensional window. I will take a look at that python script
though, thanks.
@Wayne
Well... I guess that "New Experiment" button creates some unfounded hopes. I
will try to create a spectrum by first putting in all that information by
hand and see what I get. I'm not sure I understand your comment about
cloning an existing experiment - do you mean that I can clone the PARAMETERS
within CCPN to create a new "spectrum", or that I need to replicate the
spectral DATA? Isn't the latter in effect the same as what I am doing now?
All your comments made me realize that I've opened a can of worms with my
question. Maybe these questions are something to consider in future versions
of the program? For now, it looks like my "dirty trick" using existing,
unrelated spectra remains the fastest and easiest way to at least visualize
sequential connectivities.
Thanks again!
- Martin
|