JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for CCP4BB Archives


CCP4BB Archives

CCP4BB Archives


CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CCP4BB Home

CCP4BB Home

CCP4BB  November 2007

CCP4BB November 2007

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: To bathe or not to bathe.

From:

"Manjasetty, Babu" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Manjasetty, Babu

Date:

Mon, 26 Nov 2007 09:32:04 -0500

Content-Type:

multipart/mixed

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (194 lines) , damage_rates.pdf (194 lines)

Hi there,
 
1. See attached for life-time of crystals ("How long will my crystal lost?") at various beamlines in the world.
2. The citations for the beauty and quality of the datasets from bending magnet beamlines. Please read most of the papers from Dauter group. 
 
Cheers,
 
-Babu
******************************** 
Babu A Manjasetty, Ph.D 
Case Center for Proteomics 
Center for Synchrotron Biosciences 
Upton NY 11973 
631-344-2568 (office) 
[log in to unmask] 
********************************

________________________________

From: CCP4 bulletin board on behalf of Nave, C (Colin)
Sent: Mon 11/26/2007 6:50 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] To bathe or not to bathe.




To bathers and non bathers

This is an interesting discussion with several relevant points. I agree
that, if small beams can pick up the best bits of the crystal that is a
very good reason for using them. The background arguments can be
relevant and having the beam size at the detector matched to the
detector resolution is a good idea to obtain the best signal above the
background for weak spots.

Several have raised the issue of radiation damage. The strategy which
Bob mentions can make sense, ensuring fresh parts of the crystal are
regularly brought in to the beam. I would have thought 5-10 micron beams
were rather too small if your crystal is several times bigger than this.
I think the microbeams can overcook the samples, particularly when
collecting large rotation ranges. The centre part of the crystal (if
centred!) is constantly in the beam in this case.

With a crystal of uniform quality, one should try and make use of the
entire volume if radiation damage is an issue. This could be by using
either using the method outlined by Bob or by bathing the whole crystal
in the beam. For large crystals, matching the beam at the crystal to the
crystal size and that at the detector to the detector resolution can
make a significant difference (see for example W. R. Wikoff, W.
Schildkamp and J. E. Johnson Acta Cryst. (2000). D56, 890-893   ,
http://scripts.iucr.org/cgi-bin/paper?S0907444900005941).

We occasionally hear reports (citations needed!) of better data from
bending magnet beamlines and overcooking part of the crystal on an
undulator  may be one of the reasons. Undulator beamlines are great
especially for small crystals. However, the parallel nature of the beam
means that it is not always easy to get a big beam at the crystal and a
smaller one at the detector, though it can be done if the set up is
sufficiently flexible.

 Colin
-----Original Message-----
From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Robert Sweet
Sent: 26 November 2007 00:28
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] To bathe or not to bathe.

Thanks, Ron,

Regarding the "bathing" question, these days the major source of error
we find in synchrotron-based data is crystal damage.  Several groups,
notably the two ID23s (one each of pairs of matched canted undulators at
ESRF and
APS) are producing small x-ray beams, on the order of 5-10 micron
diameters, and are saying that the principal use to which they're put is
to shoot a single larger crystal several times.  There's a certain
synergy here -- each new exposure is essentially a new and undamaged
tiny crystal, and the orientations of each succesive spot on the crystal
are essentially identical.  The orientations abut nearly precisely and
various data-reduction questions are simplified.  These days, where
x-tals tend to be smallish and synchrotron access is pretty available,
this seems to us to be an excellent strategy.

Regarding absorption corrections, here at the PXRR/NSLS a whole lot of
data are taken with wavelengths on the order of one Angstroem.  At these
wavelengths the absorption of a typical crystal in its mount, even one
that is, say 3M ammonium sulfate, is nearly negligible.  On the other
hand, if one tries to optimize S or I anomalous with 1.7 Angstroem
radiation, all bets are off.  Here I'm sure >you< would take excellent
data.

About empirical corrections: to employ Tony North's method in about 1969
I took what are formally psi scans (repeat mesurements on a
diffractometer of one reflection at increments of rotation about one
real-lattice vector) on the trypsin/soybean-trypsin-inhibitor complex.
I was using "Wyckoff"
scans* to do this.  The crystal was an orthorhombic needle, and I was
rotating about the needle axis.  I observed that the rocking curve
varied from narrow to wide, with the extremes being separated by about
180 deg.
I'd jammed the needle into a tapered capillary and it was slightly
bent(!), giving a focused beam in one direction (sharp) and an unfocused
one in the opposite (broad).  I'm told this happens these days with
frozen needles sticking out of the gob of vitreous mother liquor.

* Hal Wyckoff (the inventor of the true Inverse Beam Method**) reasoned
that there were three ways to "integrate" a reflection: one could rotate
the crystal through its rocking curve (the rotation method), one could
use a broad bandpass of wavelengths (the Laue method), or one could use
a widely convergent source (the Wyckoff scan).  To do this one increased
the take-off angle of the x-ray tube (Ron knows what this is, but those
of you who don't know should ask the oldest crystallographer nearby) so
that the angle subtended from the crystal would fill the rocking curve.
In principal the single largest measurement would equal the integrated
intensity.  To hedge ones bets, one did a five-point scan and summed the
top three.  This was how I could see the sharpness of the scans.

** Wyckoff also invented a diffractometer that had two opposing x-ray
generators, literally shooting at the crystal from opposite directions,
and then two opposing detectors, each on its own 2-theta arm.  One
detector would measure (h,k,l) at precisely the same time the other
would measure (-h,-k,-l).  What we do now, to flip the rotation axis by
180 degrees, seeing the (-h,-k,-l) reflections in a mirror image to the
(h,k,l) ones, would better be termed the Friedel Flip.

Keep those cards and letters coming, folks.

Bob


On Sun, 25 Nov 2007, Ronald E Stenkamp wrote:

> Just a few comments on "consider a crystal bathed in a uniform beam".
>
> I've not fully bought into the idea that it's OK to have the beam
> smaller than the crystal.  I learned most of my crystallography in a
> lab dedicated to precise structure determinations, and somewhere along

> the line, I picked up the idea that it's better to remove systematic
> errors experimentally than to correct for them computationally.
> (Maybe that had something to do with the computing power and programs
> available at the time?)
>
> Anyway, I thought the reason people went to smaller beams was that it
> made it possible to resolve the spots on the film or detector. Isn't
> that the main reason for using small beams?
>
> In practice, I guess the change in crystal volume actually diffracting

> hasn't been a big issue and that frame-to-frame scaling deals with the

> problem adequately.
>
> I'm less convinced that frame-to-frame scaling can correct for
> absorption very well.  Due to our irregular-shaped protein crystals,
> before the area detectors came along, we'd use an empirical correction

> (one due to North comes to mind) based on rotation about the phi axis
> of a four-circle goniostat.  It was clearly an approximation to the
> more detailed calculations of path-lengths available for crystals with

> well-defined faces not surrounded by drops of mother liquor and glass
> capillaries.  Has anyone checked to see how frame-to-frame scaling
> matches up with analytical determinations of absorption corrections?
> It'd be interesting to determine the validity of the assumption that
> absorption is simply a function of frame number.
>
> Ron
>

--
========================================================================
=
         Robert M. Sweet                 E-Dress: [log in to unmask]
         Group Leader, PXRR: Macromolecular               ^ (that's L
           Crystallography Research Resource at NSLS            not 1)
           http://px.nsls.bnl.gov/
         Biology Dept
         Brookhaven Nat'l Lab.           Phones:
         Upton, NY  11973                631 344 3401  (Office)
         U.S.A.                          631 344 2741  (Facsimile)
========================================================================
=
<DIV><FONT size="1" color="gray">This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential, copyright and or privileged material, and are for the use of the intended addressee only. If you are not the intended addressee or an authorised recipient of the addressee please notify us of receipt by returning the e-mail and do not use, copy, retain, distribute or disclose the information in or attached to the e-mail.
Any opinions expressed within this e-mail are those of the individual and not necessarily of Diamond Light Source Ltd.
Diamond Light Source Ltd. cannot guarantee that this e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses and we cannot accept liability for any damage which you may sustain as a result of software viruses which may be transmitted in or with the message.
Diamond Light Source Limited (company no. 4375679). Registered in England and Wales with its registered office at Diamond House, Harwell Science and Innovation Campus, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0DE, United Kingdom
</FONT></DIV>



Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager