Hi Vincent,
I am very lucky to see 2 maps of the same
protein, at roughly the same resolution, one by Xray and the
other by EM (it's not that common). The details from the 2
maps are however different...
wow, fascinating!
Here is my procedure, please let me know what you
think:
- convert .mrc map to .mtz ; I get F, PHIF.
- supperpose the maps:
map1: labels 2FOFCWT, PH2FOFCWT
map2: F, PHIF.
I also provided the 2 PDBs as it is clearly stated on the
input files definitions.
It worked, with the 2 maps superposed that I can look and
compare.
Ok, sounds good so far. Yes, this is what I
would expect!
However, for some reason, the superposition has
been done on chain C and D of the crystallograhic model
instead of chain AB (4 chains in the asymmetric unit, making 2
dimers). Is there a reason there, choosing the closest
structure, best fit? (I see that it is possible to define a
superposition)
You can specify this manually!
Another thing is that it creates a
"supperposition in the middle", meaning neither on model1 nor
model2 from the input, and not a crystallographic symmetric of
model1. So I can't use the full crystallographic maps, I have
a "simplified" version of it.
I guess this is the feature of current
implementation.
Pavel