Hi Bert,
here is one anecdotal evidence: a couple of years ago, I had one real
in-house 3 A data set from a crystal after a quick iodide soak and
processed the images with denzo/scalepack, mosflm/scala and xds/xscale.
I got lower Rsym, higher I/sig(I) and better anomalous signal with xds.
More importantly, I could solve the iodide substructure easily with
SHELXC/D at different high resolution limits up to 3.5 A with the xds
data set. For the other data sets, I had to cut the higher resolution
limit down to 4-5 A, and there were fewer solutions for the substructure.
Best regards,
Dirk.
Am 28.01.11 14:37, schrieb Van Den Berg, Bert:
I have heard this before. I'm wondering though, does anybody know of a
systematic study where different data processing programs are compared
with real-life, non-lysozyme data?
Bert
On 1/28/11 7:58 AM, "Bosch, Juergen" <[email protected]> wrote:
I was a bit reductive with my statement (iPhone....)
The equation below is suppose to read:
If you have bad data, then you need to process with XDS in order
to get the maximum out of your data.
Thanks Tim,
Jürgen
-
Jürgen Bosch
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
Department of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology
Johns Hopkins Malaria Research Institute
615 North Wolfe Street, W8708
Baltimore, MD 21205
Phone: +1-410-614-4742
Lab: +1-410-614-4894
Fax: +1-410-955-3655
http://web.mac.com/bosch_lab/ <http://web.me.com/bosch_lab/>
On Jan 28, 2011, at 7:44 AM, Tim Gruene wrote:
Dear Jürgen,
is this an assignment operator or an equal sign? For if it's
the latter it could
read that the result of processing data with XDS are bad data,
which is rather
rude and probably not what you meant.
Tim
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 06:55:43AM -0500, Jürgen Bosch wrote:
Bad data = processing with XDS
Jürgen
......................
Jürgen Bosch
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
Department of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology
Johns Hopkins Malaria Research Institute
615 North Wolfe Street, W8708
Baltimore, MD 21205
Phone: +1-410-614-4742
Lab: +1-410-614-4894
Fax: +1-410-955-3655
http://web.mac.com/bosch_lab/
On Jan 28, 2011, at 6:46, José Trincão
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hello all,
I have been trying to squeeze the most out of a bad
data set (P1, anisotropic, crystals not reproducible).
I had very incomplete data due to high mosaicity and
lots of overlaps. The completeness was about 80%
overall to ~3A. Yesterday I noticed that I could
process the data much better fixing the mosaicity to
0.5 in imosflm. I got about 95% complete up to 2.5A
but with a multiplicity of 1.7. I tried to integrate
the same data fixing the mosaicity at different values
ranging from 0.2 to 0.6 and saw the trend in
completeness, Rmerge and multiplicity.
Now, is there any reason why I should not just merge
all these together and feed them to scala in order to
increase multiplicity?
Am I missing something?
Thanks for any comments!
Jose
José Trincão, PhD CQFB@FCT-UNL
2829-516 Caparica, Portugal
"It's very hard to make predictions... especially
about the future" - Niels Bohr
--
*******************************************************
Dirk Kostrewa
Gene Center Munich, A5.07
Department of Biochemistry
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
Feodor-Lynen-Str. 25
D-81377 Munich
Germany
Phone: +49-89-2180-76845
Fax: +49-89-2180-76999
E-mail: [email protected]
WWW: www.genzentrum.lmu.de
*******************************************************
