Thanks for your replies. I did use default settings in phenix refine,
included TLS in it. This is an about 2.3A data, and the number Rfree used to
refine is big enough. I also kept the same Rfree in two programs. In refmac
I also tried diffenrent weighting sets--from defaut 0.3 to 0.02, TLS
included--maybe there are some other ways to define the restrains. The R and
Rfree will increase as the weighting is set too low, and the gap
didnot improve much. I donnot know in this case if the phenix refine has
converged, but the not stable Rfree in refmac made me nervous. Simply,
in this case, which one should I choose? Certainly to my private opinion I
would prefer to Scott's answer, Rfree is the most obvious parameter than
something esle like geometry, eg. Just looks good. :)


On 3/5/08, Partha Chakrabarti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> One point which I don't understand is how can someone compare the two
> different programs when  they don't use the same numbers for
> xray:geometry terms? Taking the default settings for a given
> resolution might not be enough.. !
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 7:58 PM, Savvas Savvides
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi Yang
> >  how many reflections do you have in your test-set for calculating
> >  R-free? Too few reflections, typically less than 500, may not
> >  constitute a statistically robust cross-validation data set, and thus
> may
> >  lead to fluctuations in R-free plus a tendency for R-free to increase
> >  as a function of refinement cycle. Some of the early
> >  publications from Axel Brunger on crystallographic cross-validation
> >  address the need for enough reflections (>500) in the test-set. In
> >  addition, the presence of even a handful of strong but inaccurately
> >  measured/integrated low-resolution reflections in a limited test-set
> >  can aggravate abnormal behavior in R-free.
> >
> >  Best wishes
> >  Savvas
> >
> >
> >  toQuoting yang li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >  > Dear All,
> >  >       I have post a similar question about CNS and refmac before, now
> in
> >  > another structure I met a similar problem. I have an almost finished
> >  > structure, the Rfree of which
> >  > is about 0.28 by refmac. Then I used phenix to refine it, below is
> the
> >  > result:
> >  > REMARK ******************** REFINEMENT SUMMARY: QUICK FACTS
> >  > *******************
> >  > REMARK Start: r_work = 0.1970 r_free = 0.2892 bonds = 0.006 angles =
> 1.213
> >  > REMARK Final: r_work = 0.1917 r_free = 0.2617 bonds = 0.008 angles =
> 1.374
> >  > REMARK
> >  >
> ************************************************************************
> >  >     Since the map from phenix couldnot be opened by coot directly--or
> I
> >  > donnot know how to--I used refmac to get a mtz map file. But I found
> that at
> >  > the first several cycle of
> >  > refmac the Rfree decreased, then both the R and Rfree
> values  continued
> >  > increasing and FOM decreasing.
> >  >      The best R/Rfree/FOM during the refinement is
> >  >
> >  >
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >  > Overall R factor                     =     0.1932
> >  > Free R factor                        =     0.2513
> >  > Overall figure of merit              =     0.8168
> >  >
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >  >      And after 40 cycles the final result is:
> >  >
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >  > Overall R factor                     =     0.2008
> >  > Free R factor                        =     0.2772
> >  > Overall figure of merit              =     0.7902
> >  >
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >  >     The values looks like keep going up if increase the cycles. Then
> which
> >  > value should I take as the final result? The phenix or the best
> Refmac
> >  > result or  I have to take  a converged
> >  > value from refmac?
> >  >
> >
>
>
>
>
> --
> MRC National Institute for Medical Research
> Division of Molecular Structure
> The Ridgeway, NW7 1AA, UK
> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Phone: + 44 208 816 2515
>

Reply via email to