PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

D Feil

Publications and source records attributed to D Feil.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

Extracting charge density distributions from diffraction data: a model study on urea

The quality of the extraction of electron density distributions by means of a multipole refinement method is investigated. Structure factors of the urea crystal have been obtained from an electron density distribution (EDD) resulting from a density function calculation with the CRYSTAL95 package. To account for the thermal motion of the atoms, the stockholder-partioned densities of the atoms have been convoluted with thermal smearing functions, which were obtained from a neutron diffraction experiment. A POP multipole refinement yielded a good fit, R = 0.6%. This disagreement factor is based on magnitudes only. Comparison with the original structure factors gave a disagreement of 0.8% owing to differences in magnitude and phase. The fitted EDD still showed all the characteristics of the interaction density. After random errors corresponding to the experimental situation were added to the structure factors, the refinement was repeated. The fit was R = 1.1%. This time the resulting interaction density was heavily deformed. Repetition with another set of random errors from the same distribution yielded a widely different interaction density distribution. The conclusion is that interaction densities cannot be obtained from X-ray diffraction data on non-centrosymmetric crystals.

Journal Article↗

Electron-density-based calculations of intermolecular energy: case of urea.

The intermolecular interaction energy in crystalline urea has been calculated both from diffraction data and from the Hartree-Fock crystalline electron-density distribution, using a modified atom-atom approximation scheme. The electrostatic part of this energy has been calculated from the atomic multipole moments, obtained by adjustment of the multipole model to experimental X-ray and to theoretical Hartree-Fock structure amplitudes. To obtain the induction energy, multipole moments were calculated from structure amplitudes for the crystalline electron density and from those that refer to the electron density of a superposition of isolated molecules. This worked well for the calculation of the interaction energy from Hartree-Fock data (6% difference from the sublimation-energy value), but not for the interaction energy from experimental data, where the moments of the superposition have to come from Hartree-Fock calculations: the two sets of multipole moments are far too different. The uncertainty of the phases of the structure amplitudes, combined with systematic errors in the theoretical data and noise in the experimental values, may account for the discrepancies. The nature of the different contributions to intermol-ecular interactions for urea is examined.

Journal Article↗

Electron density study of urea using TDS-corrected X-ray diffraction data: quantitative comparison of experimental and theoretical results.

The electron-density distribution in urea, CO(NH(2))(2), was studied by high-precision single-crystal X-ray diffraction analysis at 148 (1) K. An experimental correction for TDS was applied to the X-ray intensities. R(merge)(F(2)) = 0.015. The displacement parameters agree quite well with results from neutron diffraction. The deformation density was obtained by refinement of 145 unique low-order reflections with the Hansen & Coppens [Acta Cryst. (1978), A34, 909-921] multipole model, resulting in R = 0.008, wR = 0.011 and S = 1.09. Orbital calculations were carried out applying different potentials to account for correlation and exchange: Hartree-Fock (HF), density-functional theory/local density approximation (DFT/LDA) and density-functional theory/generalized gradient approximation (DFT/GGA). Extensive comparisons of the deformation densities and structure factors were made between the results of the various calculations and the outcome of the refinement. The agreement between the experimental and theoretical results is excellent, judged by the deformation density and the structure factors [wR(HF) = 0.023, wR(DFT) = 0.019] and fair with respect to the results of a topological analysis. Density-functional calculations seem to yield slightly better results than Hartree-Fock calculations.

Journal Article↗

Older medical students' performances at McGill University.

PURPOSE: To compare admission data and academic performances of medical students younger and older than 25, and to qualify older students' experiences and perceptions in medical school. METHOD: The authors reviewed 1988-1991 data for applications to the McGill University Faculty of Medicine. Data included GPAs and MCAT scores, as well as ratings for reference letters, autobiographical statements, and interviews. For those same years, the authors measured students' academic performances in the preclinical and clinical years. The authors compared the data by students' age: "younger" students, aged 17 to 24; and "older" students, aged 25 and above. All enrolled students took the Derogatis Stress Profile, and the older students participated in focus groups. RESULTS: The older applicants had lower GPAs and MCAT scores, but higher interview and reference letter ratings. For older accepted students, basic science course scores were lower than those of younger students, but clinical scores did not differ significantly between the groups. The two groups had similar stress levels, although older students tested lower in driven behavior, relaxation potential, attitude posture, and hostility. In focus groups, the older students spoke of learning style differences, loss of social support, and loss of professional identity. CONCLUSION: Different scores in admission criteria suggest that McGill uses different standards to select older medical students. Older students admitted under different criteria, however, do just as well as do younger students by their clinical years. A broad-based study of admission criteria and outcomes for the older student population is warranted.

Adolescent↗