Dear Deepali,
the best way to define the resolution cut-off is to check whether the
data still contribute to model quality. You can easily check that by the
procedure called "paired refinement" as described by Diederichs and
Karplus (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3457925/
of such numbers are?
See my rant:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0969212618301382
Best, BR
From: CCP4 bulletin board On Behalf Of Tom Peat
Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 11:46
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Acceptable range of CC1/2
I think all of those numbers
Usual recommendations are to have CC-half > 0.3 or 0.5 (these are usually not
so far separated)
For the most part the refinement software is smart enough to down-weight
“noise” in the outer shell so there is very little penalty in including weak
measurements, and you should put up a fight with
I think all of those numbers would be pretty acceptable to almost all referees
;-)
Cheers, tom
From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Deepali
Verma
Sent: Tuesday, 5 June 2018 7:29 PM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: [ccp4bb] Acceptable range of CC1/2
Dear all
Dear all,
I am trying to process a crystal data at *2.8Å* and having CC1/2 is 0.771
(outer shell). I just want to know the acceptable range of CC1/2. These are
the statistics of the process data.
Overall InnerShell OuterShell
Low resolution limit
