Skip to main content
. 1998 Mar 17;95(6):2938–2943. doi: 10.1073/pnas.95.6.2938

Table 1.

Statistics from the crystallographic analysis

Native Derivative 1*
Derivative 2*
Data set 1 Data set 2 Data set 3 Data set 4 Data set 5
Data collection
 Observed reflections 126,746 74,611 86,629 47,898 33,420 56,366
 Unique reflections 19,034 20,631 21,289 22,676 17,871 22,863
 Completeness, % 77.4 96.0 97.6 92.8 70.6 95.6
Rmerge, % 12.8 15.2 11.0 12.0 15.5 13.1
 Mean I 7.0 5.1 8.4 6.0 4.0 5.0
MIR analysis
 Resolution, Å 40–3.1
 Mean isomorphous difference, % 14.7 12.6 20.0 21.8 18.6
 Phasing power 1.48 1.57 1.61 1.79 1.93
 Cullis R-factor 0.82 0.81 0.82 0.75 0.74
 Mean overall figure of merit 0.47
Refinement
 Resolution, Å 8–3.1
R-factor, % 29.7
 Free R-factor, % 33.7
 Reflections with |F| > 2σ 17,027
 Nonhydrogen atoms 5,474
 Bond lengths RMS deviation, Å 0.02
 Bond angles RMS deviation, degrees 2.35
*

Positions of 5IdU substitution in derivative 1 are T73, T76, and T93′, and in derivative 2 are T73, T76, and T88′. 

After local filtering with an Ihklhkl cutoff of 1.0 to eliminate regions of unreliable data. Crystallographic R-factor = ∑ |FobsFcalc|/∑|Fobs|, calculated using anisotropically sharpened data.