1998
DOI: 10.1107/s0907444998001875
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Description of Imperfections in Protein Crystals

Abstract: An analysis is given of the contribution of various crystal imperfections to the rocking widths of reflections and the divergence of the diffracted beams. The crystal imperfections are the angular spread of the mosaic blocks in the crystal, the size of the mosaic blocks and the variation in cell dimensions between blocks. The analysis has implications for improving crystal perfection, defining data-collection requirements and for dataprocessing procedures. Measurements on crystals of tetragonal lysozyme at roo… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
50
0

Year Published

1999
1999
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 47 publications
(51 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
1
50
0
Order By: Relevance
“…were prepared as described in the Experimental procedures, and processed using both MOSFLM and XDS in order to compare and contrast the anomalous signal and other statistical indicators of data quality (Table 1). The mosaic spread reported by MOSFLM for the real dataset was 0.50, and, using a simulated mosaic spread of 0.4 in combination with 0.3% unit cell dispersion as suggested by Nave 25, resulted in a mosaic spread of 0.49 as reported by MOSFLM. XDS uses a different approach for estimating mosaic spread 20, resulting in values of 0.158 for the real data and 0.159 for the simulated data.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 71%
“…were prepared as described in the Experimental procedures, and processed using both MOSFLM and XDS in order to compare and contrast the anomalous signal and other statistical indicators of data quality (Table 1). The mosaic spread reported by MOSFLM for the real dataset was 0.50, and, using a simulated mosaic spread of 0.4 in combination with 0.3% unit cell dispersion as suggested by Nave 25, resulted in a mosaic spread of 0.49 as reported by MOSFLM. XDS uses a different approach for estimating mosaic spread 20, resulting in values of 0.158 for the real data and 0.159 for the simulated data.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 71%
“…As described in the Supplementary Note, the underlying phenomenon treated by that model (large λ/a ratio, where λ is the wavelength of the incident light, and a is the crystal width) does not apply for high-resolution experiments. In fact, it is not possible to identify a single criterion to describe the spot shape throughout the data sets; some images exhibit concentric arcs consistent with mosaic spread 37 (not shown), while other images contain elongation that is chiefly radial (Fig. 1e).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The linearity is expected if there is little or no contribution of the mosaicity to internal domain variation. 38,39 For the 1.8% dimer case, mosaicity increases with resolution. This is indicative of disorder within the individual domains that make up the crystal.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is a measure of the angular size of the reflection profile after correction for the effects of the beam nonideality and diffraction geometry. Mosaicity is due to a combination of three causes: 38,39 angular misalignment of domains within the crystal, finite domain volume, and lattice strain. In previous microgravity experiments, the reduced crystal mosaicity reported for lysozyme 4 and thaumatin 5 were observed to be from the increase of domain sizes within the crystals.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%