The way I look at it; BSA the the total surface area defined within two
bisecting 3D curves, interface area is the minimum surface area that
can be that can be produced by interpolation between regions at bisect
each other. Probably not the best definition.
On a side note: can one really use this approach to calculate BSA
between domains? I could see a situation where splitting domains into
two separate entities would calculate excess surface area for regions
that connect these domains. I recall using Insight2 ages ago to create
subsets, and then calculating Connolly surfaces within a given context.
From what I remember, it was real pain. Any better software out there
for this?
Cheers,
AGS
> Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 11:03:59 -0400
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] interface
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Which brings up something about PISA. If I run PISA on pdb entry 2IE3,
> which I'm familiar with, I get the following numbers from PISA and
> CCP4's AREAIMOL (surface areas in Angstrom^2) for the A:C interface.
>
> >> PISA for 2IE3
> Automatic A:C interface selection 907.9
> (a crystal packing interface is larger than this, but this surface
> is the A:C interface)
>
> >> AreaIMol with some editing of 2IE3 to separate the chains
> Chain A 25,604.4
> Chain C 11,847.4
> Total 37,451.8
> Chain AC 35,576.6
> Difference 1,875.2
> Difference/2 937.6
>
>
> For buried S.A. I agree with Steve Darnell's definition. However PISA
> appears to be reporting half that value, or what it calls "interface
> area". Potentially confusing.
>
> Phil Jeffrey
> Princeton
>
> Steven Darnell wrote:
> > Sorry, that equation should read:
> >
> > Buried_Surface_Area = ASA_unbound1 + ASA_unbound2 - ASA_bound
> > ASA = Accessible Surface Area
> >
> > The way I wrote it before would give you a negative value.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Steve Darnell
> >
Reveal your inner athlete and share it with friends on Windows Live. Share now!
