On 16 Feb 2006, at 01:52 pm, Tim Stevens wrote:
Yep. To begin with there would be series of disconnected 'i and i-1'
connectivities.
>
> The idea is that you should assign the HNCA and HNcoCA matching
> peaks to
> the same carbon resonance (i.e. in the same spin system). I suspect
> that
> liberal use of "Set sequential spin systems" without the HNcoCA being
> connected to the same resonance as HNCA has caused the mess.
I did select all the CA peaks, beneath each other, in HNCA (i-1 CA)
and HNcoCA spectra and only then used the 'Set sequential spin
system.' I did not use the 'Set sequential spin system' R: menu
individually and separately for each of the same (or corresponding)
peak from HNCA (i-1 CA) and HNcoCA.
>
> Analysis has no innate way of knowing which HNCA spin system you
> meant to
> connect an HNcoCA peak to. You have to make a choice on the basis of
> matching peak positions and make the resonance connection yourself,
> in the
> same way that you'd do any other assignment.
It has the necessary information from the spin system number which is
consistent and was connected (i and i-1) with the procedure described
above. I have already made the resonance connection myself.
Say for example, if spin system {5} is assigned to 4Tyr (anonymous
assignment is converted to non-anonymous) and if spin system {6} is
the preceding spin system (i-1) based on sequential connectivity
established as described above, why can't spin system {6}
automatically get 3Ser as its assignment. I thought it was
sufficient. Isn't it?!
|