So you mean that even with small tolerances it was still picking peaks
away from where the reference peak position was? I just tried an example
and it picked them on top of the reference peak (well, it looked like it
was off 0.001 ppm in some cases) and it did not do this with normal
tolerances (so in that case it picked at the extrema which were within the
tolerance in my example).
On Fri, 27 May 2011, Simon Skinner wrote:
> Hi Wayne
> I have tried it with and without those options selected but i still get the
> same result, is there a reason for this?
> On May 26, 2011, at 6:12 PM, Wayne Boucher wrote:
>> Tim suggests that you should click the "Pick new peaks" and "Pick
>> non-maxima peaks" check boxes. Now what that does is that it will try and
>> find a local extremum within the specified tolerances and if it doesn't
>> find one it will put down a peak at the reference position. So if you want
>> all your peaks to be at the reference position then you should make the
>> tolerances small enough that it will then not find any extrema. The
>> tolerances are set in the table below those two check boxes, you might need
>> to resize the dialog to see it.
>> On Thu, 26 May 2011, S.P. Skinner wrote:
>>> Hi All
>>> I am using the follow intensity changes function to calculate R1 and R2
>>> rates for my protein, but there appears to be an issue wherein the peak
>>> position changes from point to point. I have picked and assigned the
>>> first plane, but not the others. Is there a way to force the peak picking
>>> to stay in exactly the same place or would I have to manually assign all
>>> planes of the pseudo 3D spectra? If the latter is true, is there a quick
>>> way to do this?
>>> Simon P Skinner
>>> Protein Chemistry Group
>>> Leiden Institute of Chemistry, Universiteit Leiden
>>> Phone: +31 71 527 6089 / Fax: +31 71 527 4349
>>> E-mail : [log in to unmask]