Hi Mike,
To my limited understanding, it is hard to get an accurate Wilson estimate for data below 3Ang (am I
right??!).
To me, the B-factor you list doesn't sound bad although some folks might holler 'Bloody Murder' when
I say so. I have a structure to 3.7Ang (I'd have liked higher resolution as well) and the overall
'unreliable' Wilson B estimate the program coughed up was 120. I looked around for structures at
similar resolutions and found that folks had reported similar values.
To me, all that tells me is that B=120 (in my case) reflects the inherent disorder in my crystals.
So, I kept my interpretations from the structure as conservative, as suggestive, as cautious, and as
inconclusive as possible.
The more I think about Wilson B's and the more I think about why folks crave for 'low' B-factors
when not attainable, the more lost I get.
Hope my B-factors made yours feel better :)
Raji
---------Included Message----------
>Dear colleagues,
>
>I have a B of 75A**2 from Wilson statistics 4.7 to 3 A res, good straight
>line. Has anyone seen a B so high in Wilson statistics?
>
>( I understand that it is best to have higher res but I do not).
>
>Thanks.
>
>Mike Colaneri
>
>
---------End of Included Message----------
|