Missing information densities

Can we uncover simple, modem examples that emphasize the same fundamentals, but can catch the missing pieces as well I would argue that a new example is called for, not additional examples, in order to keep the information density at a level that does not compromise student learning. 

More recently Bemoux (1998), Bemoux et al. (1998b) and Cerri et al. (2(XX)) studied an area of 334,000 km of the western Brazilian Amazon basin. These authors applied a first correction assuming that the soil fraction > 2 mm is carbon ftee. Soil bulk densities were often lacking in previous studies, and soil carbon content not always determined for several horizons. Bemoux (1998) proposed several methods to estimate the missing information. 

There is a great conceptual advantage in abandoning the missing information 1 P , 2) in favour of the fluctuation A N, 2) to determine the localization of electrons. Lennard-Jones (1952) pointed out that the extent to which a set of indistinguishable particles is spatially localized is determined by the system s pair density, the same distribution function which determines the... 

Such a comparison has formed the basis, for example, for the assertion that the double layer can be emersed essentially intact from solution /8/. A common ambiguity, although for different reasons, in both emersion and UHV model experiments is the difference in the amount of solvent present either at the emersed or synthesized interface, compared to the in-situ situation. In the UHV the total amount of solvent adsorbed, and its distribution into the first and subsequent layers, can in many instances directly be determined, but this information is difficult to obtain and not yet available for the emersed and the real interface. To gather such missing pieces in the interfacial puzzle is the motivation for the work described in this paper. One important prerequisite for any model of the double layer is, for example, the density of solvent molecules in the inner layer as a function of the charge on the interfacial capacitor. 

To interpret the electronic structure of a material, it is often useful to understand what states are important in the vicinity of specific atoms. One standard way to do this is to use the local density of states (LDOS), defined as the number of electronic states at a specified energy weighted by the fraction of the total electron density for those states that appears in a specified volume around a nuclei. Typically, this volume is simply taken to be spherical so to calculate the LDOS we must specify the effective radii of each atom of interest. This definition cannot be made unambiguously. If a radius that is too small is used, information on electronic states that are genuinely associated with the nuclei will be missed. If the radius is too large, on the other hand, the LDOS will include contributions from other atoms. 

When we describe structure factors and electron density as Fourier series, we find that they are intimately related. The electron density is the Fourier transform of the structure factors, which means that we can convert the crystallographic data into an image of the unit cell and its contents. One necessary piece of information is, however, missing for each structure factor. We can measure only the intensity Ihkl of each reflection, not the complete structure factor Fhkl. What is the relationship between them It can be shown that the amplitude of structure factor Fhkl is proportional to the square root of... 

Occasionally, portions of the known sequence of a protein are never found in the electron-density maps, presumably because the region is highly disordered or in motion, and thus invisible on the time scale of crystallography. It is not at all uncommon for residues at termini, especially the N terminus, to be missing from a model. Discussions of these structure-specific problems are included in a thorough refinement paper, as well as in PDB header information. 

The two main methods currently used in computational and combined computational/experimental studies in the general area of transition metal coordination compounds, and specifically also with macrocyclic ligands, are DFT and MM. While DFT yields structural data, energies and molecular vibrations, as well as electronic information (the ground state wave function, spin density, charge distribution etc ), the latter is missing in MM. 

The minimum information covers chemical formula, molecular weight, normal boiling point, freezing point, liquid density, water solubility and critical properties. Additional properties are enthalpies of phase transitions, heat capacity of ideal gas, heat capacity of liquid, viscosity and thermal conductivity of liquid. Computer simulation can estimate missing values. The use of graphs and tables of properties offers a wider view and is strongly recommended. 

The primary electron beam may also be inelastically scattered through interaction with electrons from surface atoms. In this case, the collision displaces core electrons from filled shells e.g, ns (K) or np (L)) the resulting atom is left as an energetic excited state, with a missing inner shell electron. Since the energies of these secondary electrons are sufficiently low, they must be released from atoms near the surface in order to be detected. Electrons ejected from further within the sample are reabsorbed by the material before they reach the surface. As we will see in the next section (re SEM), as the intensity of the electron beam increases, or the density of the sample decreases, information from underlying portions of the sample may be obtained. 

Though we can compare electron densities directly, there is often a need for more condensed information. The missing link in the experimental sequence are the steps from the electron density to the one-particle density matrix f(1,1 ) to the wavefunction. Essentially the difficulty is that the wavefunction is a function of the 3n space coordinates of the electrons (and the n spin coordinates), while the electron density is only a three-dimensional function. Drastic assumptions must be introduced, such as the description of the molecular orbitals by a limited basis set, and the representation of the density by a single Slater-determinant, in which case the idempotency constraint reduces the number of unknowns... 

Although the positions of all E dimers in the outer shell of the particle were known, a precise interpretation of the density contributed by the M protein was not possible. This was due to the lack of detailed information concerning the C-terminal 101 amino acids of the E protein that were missing from the crystal structure. These residues form the stalk region, the transmembrane domain, and the NSl signal sequence. Approximately 52 residues would compose the stalk and are found in a shell of density in which the short M protein (37 amino acids outside of the membrane) would also be predicted to be found. Together, the M and the E proteins completely cover the lipid bilayer so that there is no exposed membrane in the dengue particle. 

Simulated annealing refinement is usually unable to correct very large errors in the atomic model or to correct for missing parts of the structure. The atomic model needs to be corrected by inspection of a difference Fourier map. In order to improve the quality and resolution of the difference map, the observed phases are often replaced or combined with calculated phases, as soon as an initial atomic model has been built. These combined electron density maps are then used to improve and to refine the atomic model. The inclusion of calculated phase information brings with it the danger of biasing the refinement process towards the current atomic model. This model bias can obscure the detection of errors in atomic models if sufficient experimental phase information is unavailable. In fact during the past decade several cases of incorrect or partly incorrect atomic models have been reported where model bias may have played a role [67]. 

Here we have encountered the crucial, essential difficulty in X-ray diffraction analysis. It is not experimentally possible to directly measure the phase angles hki of the structure factors. The best that our sophisticated detectors can provide are the amplitudes of the structure factors Fhki but not their phases. Thus we cannot proceed directly from the measured diffraction pattern, the measured intensities, through the Fourier equation to the crystal structure. We must first find the phases of the structure factors. This central obstacle in structure analysis has the now infamous name, The Phase Problem. Virtually all of X-ray diffraction analysis, not only macromolecular but for all crystals, is focused on overcoming this problem and by some means recovering the missing phase information required to calculate the electron density. 

---