journal menu
![[Figure 4]](uu5005fig4mag.jpg)
|
|
Figure 4
(a) I(q) versus q SAXS data taken from SASDF83 (black symbols with standard error bars) overlaid with the fit of the AF-Q06187 WAXSiS-calculated SAXS profile (red line) and with the NNLS ensemble fit model generated from the CRYSOL 2.8-calculated SAXS profiles on the MMC pool structures (violet line). (b) Error-weighted residual plots for the fits shown in panel (a). (c) and (d) GNOM-derived P(r) profiles from SAXS data (black symbols without/with standard error bars) overlaid with that from the AF-Q06187 prediction (red lines) and with the NNLS ensemble fits from the P(r) calculated on the MMC pool structures without and with error weighting, respectively (blue and orange lines). (e) I(q) versus q SAXS data taken from SASDF83 (black symbols with standard error bars) overlaid with the NNLS ensemble fit model calculated using the WAXSiS-generated I(q) versus q profiles of all NNLS-selected structures from the CRYSOL 2.8 and P(r) fits (magenta line). In the inset, four representative structures selected with a significant percentage by at least two of the four NNLS fits are shown, after superposition on the 213–659 C-terminal residues [see Table 2 ![[link]](../../../../../../logos/arrows/j_arr.gif){kind=small} (b) for the full fitting results]. (f) Error-weighted residual plot for the fit shown in panel (e). |
![[Figure 4]](uu5005fig4.jpg)
 | JOURNAL OF APPLIED CRYSTALLOGRAPHY |
ISSN: 1600-5767
access
