Just to add some more information on the issue ... Take also a look at the following article:
"Does NMR mean "not for molecular replacement"? Using NMR-based search models to solve protein crystal structures"
Chen YW, Dodson EJ, Kleywegt GJ.
Structure (2000) 8, 213-220
Martin
_________________________________________
Dr. Martin Martinez-Ripoll
Research Professor
[log in to unmask]
Department of Crystallography & Structural Biology
www.xtal.iqfr.csic.es
Telf.: +34 917459550
Consejo Superior de Investigaciones CientÃficas
Spanish National Research Council
-----Mensaje original-----
De: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:[log in to unmask]] En nombre de Ethan Merritt
Enviado el: domingo, 09 de junio de 2013 20:13
Para: [log in to unmask]
Asunto: Re: [ccp4bb] Off-topic: NMR and crystallography
On Sunday, 09 June 2013, Theresa Hsu wrote:
> Dear all
>
> A question for the cross-trained members of this forum - for small sized proteins, is NMR better than crystallography in terms of data collection (having crystals in the first place) and data processing? How about membrane proteins?
A relevant study is the comparison by Yee et al (2005) JACS 127:16512.
<http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ja053565+>
They tried to solve 263 small proteins using both NMR and crystallography.
43 only worked for NMR
43 only worked for X-ray
21 could be solved either way
So you could say it was a toss-up, but consider that
- As the size gets larger, NMR becomes increasingly impractical
- 156 (60%) weren't solved by either NMR or crystallography.
What is the relative cost of the failed attempt?
Ethan
|