Indeed, that is correct. The whole magnetization transfer / reference
type issue is quite involved, especially since they're not always
fully separated from each other.
The main question is how this information is used. The only point
where I encountered it before, is that I was hoping to see selected
cross peaks mapped onto a reference structure (PDB file), but that I
was told that this was not implemented for the (I believe) 13C / 15N
pair since the magnetization transfer mechanism had not yet been fully
set up in Analysis. I guess this was only done for 1H-1H distances
(in solution NMR experiments).
Patrick
On Oct 2, 2009, at 12:18 PM, Vicky Higman wrote:
>> Another question is where the 'cp.av' pulse program name came from.
>> Is it the correct name of the pulse progam file? Is this a home-
>> made sequence, with a non-Bruker-standard name? What version is the
>> Bruker file? Is that indeed what it says in the $PULPROG line? What
>> experiment should it be?
>
> I suspect the issue here is that Patrick is doing solid-state NMR.
> I think in general we need to bit of an overhaul and extension of
> Expt Types for solids. The current Expt Types for instance don't
> include the initial H-C or H-N CP step and in reality they probably
> should. We also need to think about what transfer types to use. I
> think a specific REDOR or TEDOR transfer would be good, as this
> could be linked to distance determinations. The SpinDiff transfer
> type currently covers a multitude of sins - probably no bad thing,
> but the solid-state community ought to decide collectively, what
> transfer types it would be useful to separate out and which ones can
> just be lumped together (e.g. I don't see any real point in
> distinguishing between PDSD and DARR and possibly even PAR, although
> these technically constitute different types of magnetisation
> transfer).
>
> Would be happy to discuss more of this off-list with anyone
> interested.
>
> Vicky
>
>
>
>
>
>> If this will be a regular occurrence we have provided for a user-
>> specific pulse program name mapping, so that you can enter your own
>> local pulse program names. It would have to be made functional, and
>> it will not be that easy to use, so we are waiting till we get
>> requests before we consider implementing it.
>>
>> Hope this helps,
>>
>> Rasmus
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Dr. Rasmus H. Fogh Email: [log in to unmask]
>> Dept. of Biochemistry, University of Cambridge,
>> 80 Tennis Court Road, Cambridge CB2 1GA, UK. FAX (01223)766002
>>
>> On Fri, 2 Oct 2009, Patrick van der Wel wrote:
>>
>>> One more thing I noticed in v2.1. It seems that the experiment
>>> type system has been re-worked (improved??). However, it is not
>>> entirely clear to me how this should be used. By default it now
>>> selects a 'use external' category, which seems to mean that it
>>> used the pulse program name. This seems fine to me, but then I get
>>> the following popup (see below) regarding the lack of reference
>>> experiment types.
>>>
>>> From experimenting a bit, it seems that I have to select the
>>> 'other' category and then pick the traditional ref exp types, as
>>> before. Is this right? Why is it defaulting to the external one
>>> which does not seem to work? (Or am I doing something wrong?)
>>>
>>>
>>> Patrick
>>>
>>
>
> --
> *********************************************************
> Dr. Victoria A. Higman
>
> Leibniz-Institut fuer Molekulare Pharmakologie (FMP)
> NMR-Supported Structural Biology
> Robert-Roessle-Str. 10
> 13125 Berlin
> Germany
> and
> School of Chemistry
> University of Bristol
> Bristol BS8 1TS
> United Kingdom
>
> Phone: +44-117-95-46325
> E-mail: [log in to unmask] (or [log in to unmask])
>
> http://www.protein-nmr.org.uk
> *********************************************************
|