***  For details on how to be removed from this list visit the  ***
***          CCP4 home page http://www.ccp4.ac.uk         ***


The expected dI/I should go up as a function of resolution (with a 
wiggle here and there depending on your heavy atom structure and 
macromolecule). the <dI/I>, or its amplitude related cousin, can be a 
bit deceptive. The presence of errors have a large influence on the 
values you get in your data. 

More informative (for your question) is the following expression: 
 
<delta I> \approx 2 f_light f" (Nlight Nheavy)^(1/2)
(Parthasarathy & Srinivasan, 1964)

note that as f_light does down as a function of resolution, so do your 
expected bijvoet differences, eventhough f" is constant.

This effect coupled with a I/sigI that goes down (it usually does), 
makes the fraction of realiably measured Bijvoet intensities go down as 
a function of resolution.


HTH

Peter





----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Adrian Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tuesday, November 1, 2005 6:31 am
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb]: occcupancies

> ***  For details on how to be removed from this list visit the  ***
> ***          CCP4 home page http://www.ccp4.ac.uk         ***
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > The problem with an anomalous signal-to-noise ratio of 1 is that you
> > can't tell if you got anything just by looking at the data.  
> That is, if
> > you have no signal at all you still expect your DANOs to have an 
> average> value that is equal to the average value of SIGDANO.  
> However, the
> > signal does tend to be stronger for low-angle data.  The "DelAnom
> > correlation between half-sets" analysis done by SCALA does 
> appear to be
> > a good way of detecting pretty weak anomalous signals.  I highly
> > recommend that you look at it.
> 
> Why would the anomalous signal be stronger for low-angle data?  
> f'' (as I
> understand it) is roughly constant with respect to scattering angle
> (resolution), while f0 falls off rapidly with increasing 
> scattering angle.
> delta f' (for anomalous) should behave similiarly.
> 
> Am I missing something here?
> 
> Pete
> 
> Pete Meyer
> Fu Lab
> BMCB grad student
> Cornell University
> 
> 

Reply via email to