Dear Pavel, Yes, I may indeed have been focussed too much attention on your "subversive"-looking last paragraph, without fully seeing it in the context of the whole thread. I am also sorry that I was so strident in my criticism: I should not be writing e-mails on this topic late on a Friday night :-)) .
Have a nice weekend. Gerard. -- On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 03:48:03PM -0700, Pavel Afonine wrote: > Dear Gerard, > > I guess you simply did not understand my email, at all. It's in the > archive, you may read it again -:) > > All the best! > Pavel. > > P.S. Are you saying people producing (nearly manually) first macromolecular > structures BEFORE the era of cool refinement packages were all doing > "2hr0"s ? I would stay away from such a strong statements. > > > On 8/27/10 3:35 PM, Gerard Bricogne wrote: >> Dear Pavel, >> >> I must say that I find some of the statements in your message rather >> glib and shallow, especially on the part of a developer. Where is all the >> Bayesian wisdom that Phenix is advertised to have absorbed? Your last >> paragraph is shocking in this respect. The whole idea of Bayesian >> inference >> is precisely that it isn't good enough to pull out of a hat, by means of a >> trick/blackbox, "a" model that corresponds to the data, but that one needs >> to see how many models would do fare more or less as well and to give some >> rough probability distribution over them; and if your are going to finally >> deliver a single model, it had better be as representative as possible of >> that weighted ensemble of possible ones, rather than just "a" model that >> happens to have been persuaded to fit the data by hook or by crook. >> >> Closer to practicalities, the procedure by which a model that ends >> up >> being deposited should be reproducible by third parties as the endpoint of >> a >> refinement calculation from the deposited coordinates and X-ray data, >> conducted according to the author's description of their own refinement >> procedure. That procedure, however, should always end with a justifiable >> purely computational step. It seems very dangerous to state that a model >> in >> which some manual moving around of atoms was given the last word is as >> good >> as anything else. If you start encouraging such casual attitudes, you may >> end up with 2hr0. >> >> >> With best wishes, >> >> Gerard. >> >> -- >> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 02:02:48PM -0700, Pavel Afonine wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>>>>> The requirement sounds extremely suspect: every atom in the structure >>>>>> contributes to every reflection, so refining "only some atoms" makes >>>>>> as >>>>>> little mathematical sense as refining against "only a subset of >>>>>> reflections". >>>>>> >>>>> I agree with you that the requirement sounds dubious. >>>>> But the specific argument you make is not quite right. >>>>> >>>>> Two common counter-examples are real-space refinement and rigid-body >>>>> placement of a known fragment relative to an existing partial model. >>>> Not so: they're tricks to get out of local minima and maybe improve >>>> phases, but they're /not/ useful for generating the model that "best" >>>> fits >>>> the data, >>> I completely agree with Ethan. Although the overall goal of refining >>> B-factors only for a subset of atoms is not clear (there are at least >>> three >>> example where I do it in phenix.refine - I won't go into technicalities >>> here, it's hidden under the hood and no-one knows -:) ), doing so makes >>> perfect sense in general. >>> >>>> Or would one deposit a model for which real-space refinement has been >>>> the >>>> final step? >>> Of course you would. Refinement - in whatever space - is just a >>> trick/blackbox to get your model to correspond to the data, and how you >>> do >>> it: in real, reciprocal or both spaces, manually moving atoms or letting >>> minimizer or grid search do that - it does not matter. >>> >>> Pavel. >>> -- =============================================================== * * * Gerard Bricogne g...@globalphasing.com * * * * Global Phasing Ltd. * * Sheraton House, Castle Park Tel: +44-(0)1223-353033 * * Cambridge CB3 0AX, UK Fax: +44-(0)1223-366889 * * * ===============================================================