Dear Vicky,
It might be better for teh CO one, at least, where more than one residue
is involved anyway. But as a no-solid(-state) person I can have no firrm
opinion.
I am happy to make the change if you suggest that I do so.
Yours,
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 Mon, 21 Feb 2011, Vicky Higman wrote:
> Dear Matthias and Rasmus,
>
> going through the list of experiments again, I wonder whether perhaps the
> best thing would just be to call these experiments
> through-space NCACX/NCOCX and
> relayed NCACX/NCOCX.
> That might be less confusing than inter-residue NCACX/NCOCX and
> intra-residue NCACX/NCOCX.
>
> Vicky
>
>
>
>
> On 21 February 2011 08:09, Vicky Higman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi Matthias,
>
> there are in fact two new expt types for each of these expts:
> inter-residue NCACX
> intra-residue NCACX
> inter-residue NCOCX
> intra-residue NCOCX
>
> Obviously the NCOCX is always inter-residue in the sense that
> the N and the CO are from different residues, but we wanted a
> system to distinguish between expts that had been recorded
> with short mixing times where the CX part is always
> intra-residue relative to the CA or the CO and those expts
> that were recorded with a long mixing time, so the CX part
> can be inter-residues relative to the CA or CO. This means
> that a certain amount of discrimination is possible when it
> comes to assignment options etc. It may also be useful if
> someone wants to write an automated assignment routine based
> on these expts etc.
>
> Rasmus probably just wrote the backwards compatibility code
> such that the old NCACX and NCOCX were automatically set to
> the new inter-residue versions, but you can change this in
> the Experiment/Experiments/Experiment Type tab if you want.
>
> Possibly inter/intra-residue NCACX/NCOCX are not the best the
> names, but it seemed a bit shorter than short/long-mixing
> time NCACX/NCOCX. In some ways it also describes the
> distinction better, in that the cut-off should not be a
> particular mixing time, but what you actually observe in the
> specrta. But if you think it is misleading and can thing of
> something better, then do let us know.
>
> In fact for a number of the new ssNMR epxt types we've had to
> invent synonyms (all the different types of CCC expt for
> example). I think the current list still contains some
> mistakes etc. But I hope that we'll soon be able to
> update/correct things.
>
> I will hope to put some of this information on the Wiki site,
> but am not quite sure how soon I will get round to it. (With
> any luck there will also soon be a paper describing the ssNMR
> related CCPN stuff.)
>
> Vicky
>
>
>
>
>
> On 20 February 2011 19:39, Matthias Huber
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've seen that the old experiment types NCACX and NCOCX
> get translated to inter-residue NCACX and inter-residue
> NCOCX in CCPN 2.2.1.
> I don't really understand this nomenclature for the
> NCACX. Since all resonances are within one residue, I
> would call this intra-residue NCACX and the relayed one
> inter-residue (thanks for adding it by the way).
>
> Matthias
>
>
>
>
> --
> ****************************************************
> Dr. Victoria A. Higman-Davies
>
> Dept of Biochemistry
> University of Oxford
> South Parks Road
> Oxford OX1 3QU
> U.K.
>
> E-mail: [log in to unmask] (or [log in to unmask])
>
> http://www.protein-nmr.org.uk
> ****************************************************
>
>
>
>
> --
> ****************************************************
> Dr. Victoria A. Higman-Davies
>
> Dept of Biochemistry
> University of Oxford
> South Parks Road
> Oxford OX1 3QU
> U.K.
>
> E-mail: [log in to unmask] (or [log in to unmask])
>
> http://www.protein-nmr.org.uk
> ****************************************************
>
>
>
|
