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

Help for CCPEM Archives


CCPEM Archives

CCPEM Archives


CCPEM@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

CCPEM Home

CCPEM Home

CCPEM  September 2018

CCPEM September 2018

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: calibrated pixel size

From:

Sjors Scheres <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Sjors Scheres <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 17 Sep 2018 12:19:03 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (88 lines)

Dear Stefano,

At this resolution, re-refining your model may not yield a good absolute
scale, as you have noticed. If you have a homologous X-ray structure for
the virus, then you could try rigid-body fitting that into the map at
different scales and see which one fits best (so without re-refinement).
Best would be to have an independent measurement of the pixel size on
the same scope, for example by solving a known structure. Perhaps some
of your colleagues at the institute have determined the pixel size at
this magnification already?

HTH,
Sjors



On 09/17/2018 11:08 AM, Stefano Trapani wrote:
>
> Dear all
>
> We are refining the atomic model of an icosahedral capsid based on a
> cryoEM map obtained from samples of intact viruses. The nominal pixel
> size of the map is 1.21 A and the resolution (according to Relion) is
> 3.9 A.
>
> We have tried to finely calibrate the map pixel size by running
> several refinements of the atomic model at different map magnification
> levels (phenix.auto_sharpen + phenix.real_space_refine with 2ry
> structure restraints and no ADP refinement).
>
> Results are quite confusing (see attached graphs, the nominal pixel
> size is represented by the black thick vertical line):
>
>   * the best map-to-model fit is found at a rather larger pixel size
>     (~1.35A) than the nominal one (1.21 A);
>   * however the resulting icosahedral assembly is quite loose around
>     1.35 A pixel size (according to PISA predictions the 60-meric
>     would not be stable);
>   * also, quite a few Ramachandran conformations initially in favoured
>     regions shift towards less favoured (though allowed) regions as
>     the map-to-model fit increases.
>
> Do you have any suggestion on how to interpret these results or a
> better procedure (if any) to better evaluate the map magnification ?
>
> Cordially
>
> -- 
> Stefano Trapani
>
> Maître de Conférences
> http://www.cbs.cnrs.fr/index.php/fr/personnel?PERS=Stefano%20Trapani
> -------------------------------------
> Centre de Biochimie Structurale (CBS)
> 29 rue de Navacelles
> 34090 MONTPELLIER Cedex, France
>
> Tel : +33 (0)4 67 41 77 29
> Fax : +33 (0)4 67 41 79 13
> -------------------------------------
> Université de Montpellier
> CNRS UMR 5048
> INSERM UMR 1054
> -------------------------------------
>
> -- 
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
> believed to be clean.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> To unsubscribe from the CCPEM list, click the following link:
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCPEM&A=1
>

-- 
Sjors Scheres
MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology
Francis Crick Avenue, Cambridge Biomedical Campus
Cambridge CB2 0QH, U.K.
tel: +44 (0)1223 267061
http://www2.mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk/groups/scheres

########################################################################

To unsubscribe from the CCPEM list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCPEM&A=1

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

May 2024
April 2024
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


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