My experience (unpublished) is that XDS works very well for high-mosaicity
crystals due to the 3-dimensional profile fitting. For low mosaicity crystals,
I did not notice much of a difference between different programs. However,
since bad crystals tend to have a high to very high mosaicity, I fully agree
with Jürgens statement.
Best regards,
Herman
________________________________
From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Van Den Berg, Bert
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 2:38 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Merging data to increase multiplicity
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
