Hi -
I would tend to argue as follows:
An I/sigI of 3, and Rmerge of 33.6% are most definitely acceptable
values with a redundancy of 4.8. Thus, despite the 74% completeness,
that data are most definitely useful and should be included in
refinement.
A good question now is why is the data only 74% complete.
I can think of a few reasons, eg
1. not enough 'degrees' collected in total: too bad, better do better
next time, but thats not likely to be your problem.
2. overlaps at high resolution: again be more careful next time, but
could you play with the mosaicity to decrease overlaps a bit ?
3. High resolution collected in the corners of detector: put the
detector closer next time and dont collect data at the corners ...
4. Severe anisotropy: tough luck, have to live with it .. or try and
deal better with it during data collection (adjust exposure)
Whatever the case, I would use the data and clearly report in the M&M
in my paper not only what the numbers are,
but also WHY they are like that. And, of course if its trivial to do
a better data collection experiment and get the best data,
as it often is, then do a better data collection experiment ...
My main point is that you should know clearly WHY your high
resolution shell is incomplete and then decide.
The numbers alone do not always tell the full story.
Best , Tassos
well, redundancy for the highest shell is 4.8, I/sigma is 3,
Rmerge for overall is 0.08 for highest shell is 0.336. I/sigma and
Rmerge don't seem quite nice...
