Skip to content

This issue was moved to a discussion.

You can continue the conversation there. Go to discussion →

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Weakness in the Generic SANS Calculator tool #1847

Closed
smk78 opened this issue May 13, 2021 · 2 comments
Closed

Weakness in the Generic SANS Calculator tool #1847

smk78 opened this issue May 13, 2021 · 2 comments
Labels
Defect Bug or undesirable behaviour Documentation Concerns documentation
Milestone

Comments

@smk78
Copy link
Contributor

smk78 commented May 13, 2021

Biological User PeterH comments (the following is from several emails):

I believe that the [Generic SANS Calculator] tool isn’t viable for use with soft matter systems, such as proteins, due to the definition used for the natural volume of an atom.

On the website it mentions that “V can be corrected by users (input parameter Total volume). This correction is useful especially for an atomic structure (such as taken from a PDB file) to get the right normalization” but I don’t believe this is the correct way to normalise the profile.

I have looked at the source code and the calculation depends on the SLD of an atoms defined by the .pdb file you upload.....The weighting of the scattering contribution from each atom is (SLD_atom-SLD_solvent)*Volume_of_atom. It is worth noting that when SLD_solvent = 0 then SLD_atom*SLD_solvent = the correct scattering length of the atom.

The problem is that the SLD of the atoms are defined by volumes that wouldn’t be applicable in a protein and the correct SL of the atom i.e. SLD_atom = SL_atom/Vol_atom. This results (for soft matter systems) in incorrect weighing of the scattering contributions.

My proposed solution would be to recalculate an SLD for each atom that may be found in a protein (C,N,O,H,D,S etc.) and calculate am empirical SLD for an atom (instead of one based on “normal materials”) so that SLD of the entire protein would be the same for an atomic treatment as it would for calculating the SLD of the entire protein based on the SLDs of amino acids [as, for example, happens in the calculator in SASSIE-Web or the Biological Scattering Calculator (also see SasView/sasmeta#3 )].

@smk78 smk78 added Defect Bug or undesirable behaviour SasView Bug Fixing Documentation Concerns documentation labels May 13, 2021
@smk78
Copy link
Contributor Author

smk78 commented May 13, 2021

If we agree with Peter, then at the very least a warning in the docs that the calculator may not be appropriate for biological and some other soft matter systems might be in order?

Kind of related to this is this piece of work:
https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-648X/abfc13
"Thermal neutron cross sections of amino acids from average contributions of functional groups"
Romanelli et al, J. Phys. Cond. Mat., 2021

@butlerpd
Copy link
Member

Hummm... I need to think a bit about this but I am a bit confused at the moment of why we would use SLD in this case. SLD should only be used for groups of atoms I would think? such as amino acids or, as we used to do a lot in the old days, CH3 groups, CH2 groups etc where indeed we used tabulated values for those groups in similar materials.

But, given we have a real space "atomic" structure from the PDB don't we have all the necessary information to do the calculation properly (modula solvent effects perhaps)? we have the atom types and their coordinates? Why would we be guessing at an effective atomic SLD? Of course I may not understand the PDB format (ok .. I know nothing really 😄 so maybe we don't have the coordinates?

@butlerpd butlerpd modified the milestones: SasView 5.1.0, SasView 5.0.5 May 15, 2021
@dehoni dehoni modified the milestones: SasView 5.0.5, SasView 5.1.0 Jan 18, 2022
@lucas-wilkins lucas-wilkins added the Stale Mark for potential close: issue no longer seems relevant / probably complete / probably not doable. label Sep 14, 2022
@butlerpd butlerpd removed the Stale Mark for potential close: issue no longer seems relevant / probably complete / probably not doable. label Oct 31, 2022
@SasView SasView locked and limited conversation to collaborators Oct 31, 2022
@butlerpd butlerpd converted this issue into discussion #2351 Oct 31, 2022

This issue was moved to a discussion.

You can continue the conversation there. Go to discussion →

Labels
Defect Bug or undesirable behaviour Documentation Concerns documentation
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants