Table 4.
Distances | Feasibilities | Coverage pattern | |||||||||||
Residue Pair | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 vs 2 | 1 vs 3 | 2 vs 1 | 2 vs 3 | 3 vs 1 | 3 vs 2 | |
ASN 59 | VAL 68 | 26.95 | 28.33 | 5.63 | L | L | H | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
ALA 40 | ALA 63 | 21.19 | 6.86 | 40.99 | L | H | L | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
GLN 8 | ASP 83 | 8.61 | 24.04 | 23.62 | H | L | L | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
THR 75 | SER 88 | 6.79 | 6.92 | 24.52 | H | H | L | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
LEU 18 | ASP 83 | 29.98 | 8.40 | 8.95 | L | H | H | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
LYS 13 | ASN 22 | 4.94 | 19.88 | 3.15 | H | L | H | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Total | 3 H, 3 L | 3 H, 3 L | 3 H, 3 L | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
Each model pair is covered twice (a coverage pattern value of 1 indicates support for the first model over the second), and each model is expecting the same number (3) of high feasibility and low feasibility cross-links, a perfect balanced design [ib(S, Δ) = 0].