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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 
> Behalf Of P.R. Evans
> Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 4:56 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [ccp4bb]: maprot changing contour level?
> 
> ***  For details on how to be removed from this list visit the  ***
> ***          CCP4 home page http://www.ccp4.ac.uk         ***
> 
> 
> 
> The basic thing I don't understand is why anyone would ever 
> want to set the 
> contour level of a Fo-type map (ie one which tries to 
> estimate the "best" 
> electron density representing the structure, eg 2mFo-DFc) in 
> terms of its 
> RMSD. It makes no sense and never has. There is no legitimate 
> expectation 
> of what the RMSD should be.

Phil, you don't like my idea of setting sigma(2Fo-Fc map) =
2*sigma(Fo-Fc map)? 
(based of course on the old idea that unmodelled density in a Fo map
appears at approx half height, so you have to double the contribution
from the Fo-Fc map to get the true peak heights).

For example a 2Fo-Fc and a Fo-Fc map I'm looking at right now have RMSDs
0.207 and 0.0367 resp. (copied from the FFT maps when I extended them
using extends, not recalculated, of course).  So the 'true' SU of the
2Fo-Fc map is actually more like 2*0.0367 = 0.0734.

So a contour level of 1 RMSD for the 2Fo-Fc map (i.e. the value that in
this case seems to show significant unmodelled features) is really
0.207/0.0734 = 2.82 times its SU.  And it so happens that I routinely
contour my Fo-Fc maps (for which of course the SU can be much more
accurately estimated and doesn't need to be varied according to the
solvent content) at 2.8 times its SU.  So features that I'm looking at
in both maps really appear at the same level of significance, precisely
as one would expect.
 
> In practice, in the end it isn't really important, as when 
> you are looking 
> at maps on the screen you set the contour level to whatever shows the 
> features that you are interested in. Then it doesn't matter 
> whether the 
> units of the map are in e/A^3, RMSD or elephants.

This issue of course hits you most forcefully when you're trying to
devise an automated method of analysing maps and you need a way of
deciding what really is significant without seeing the map in its
entirety.  Then you don't have the luxury of manually adjusting the
contour level until the density 'looks roughly like what you expected'.
You can of course have the software tweak the contour level up or down
until the peak volume becomes what you expected but this presumes that
the density is actually contiguous and doesn't have other nearby
spurious density peaks to mess things up.

> ... but this thread does allow me to let off some steam.

.. indeed!

-- Ian

Disclaimer

This communication is confidential and may contain privileged information 
intended solely for the named addressee(s). It may not be used or disclosed 
except for the purpose for which it has been sent. If you are not the intended 
recipient you must not review, use, disclose, copy, distribute or take any 
action in reliance upon it. If you have received this communication in error, 
please notify Astex Therapeutics Ltd by emailing [EMAIL PROTECTED] and destroy 
all copies of the message and any attached documents. 



Astex Therapeutics Ltd monitors, controls and protects all its messaging 
traffic in compliance with its corporate email policy. The Company accepts no 
liability or responsibility for any onward transmission or use of emails and 
attachments having left the Astex Therapeutics domain.  Unless expressly 
stated, opinions in this message are those of the individual sender and not of 
Astex Therapeutics Ltd. The recipient should check this email and any 
attachments for the presence of computer viruses. Astex Therapeutics Ltd 
accepts no liability for damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email. 
E-mail is susceptible to data corruption, interception, unauthorized amendment, 
and tampering, Astex Therapeutics Ltd only send and receive e-mails on the 
basis that the Company is not liable for any such alteration or any 
consequences thereof.



Reply via email to