TABLE 2.

Comparison of χ² and

	Orientations shown in Fig. 7									EPR studies
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h	i	EPR1	EPR2
θ [°]	56	79	36	48	70	73	23	90	52	68	52
φ [°]	74	86	54	104	51	108	94	66	31	66	53
χ2	15.4	27.9	13.0	10.5	46.2	18.6	12.2	60.1	24.3	23.8	17.1
	9.6	24.9	19.6	8.4	39.9	13.8	9.5	60.5	36.1	17.0	14.3

The values of χ² and for orientations shown in Fig. 7 and orientations predicted by Frazier et al. (19) (denoted by EPR1) and Malmberg et al. (20) (denoted by EPR2) are given. Orientations a, d, and g provide adequate fits to the data. Orientation d has the lowest values of χ² and The statistical significance of the difference between these values for orientations d and a is ∼2−sigma. Orientation g is inconsistent with the depth parameters from the EPR measurements determined by Malmberg et al. (20) and it places hydrophilic residues of the CBL1 as deep or deeper into the lipid monolayer as hydrophobic residues of the CBL3.