Skip to main content
. 2006 Jul 31;103(32):11922–11927. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0601609103

Table 1.

Comparison of results for each protein fragment

Sample MW, kDa MALLS Rh, nm Guinier Rg, nm GNOM Rg, nm Dmax, nm Rod Dmax, nm Rod, % Rod Rg, nm Rod χ
PF2 42.7 4.3 4.3 4.7 15.0 N/D N/D N/D N/D
PF5 37.8 3.8 3.6 3.9 11.5 14.6 79 4.1 2.65
PF7 36.4 3.3 4.0 4.3 13.0 17.8 73 5.6 5.16
PF8 39.1 3.8 4.2 4.5 14.0 20.5 68 6.3 6.77
PF9 29.7 3.6 3.3 3.2 9.0 10.7 84 3.4 7.71
PF10 52.6 N/D 3.6 3.8 11.0 23.4 47 7.7 9.42
PF11 83.2 5.8 4.8 4.4 13.5 31.3 43 9.5 8.60
PF12 42.7 3.9 3.8 4.1 12.5 17.2 73 5.6 5.52
PF13 43.0 N/D 3.9 4.3 12.2 20.5 60 6.3 7.77

The following data are provided for each protein fragment: the predicted molecular mass (MW; calculated from the primary sequence); the hydrodynamic radius (Rh) from MALLS; the Rg from the Guinier approximation and GNOM; the Dmax; the measured maximum dimension of a rod-shaped model, i.e., a linear array of domains (Rod Dmax); the experimental Dmax/Rod Dmax expressed as a percentage (% Rod); the theoretical Rg of the rod model (Rod Rg); and the discrepancy factor χ between the rod model and experimental data (Rod χ). N/D, not determined.