Hello Maia, Rmerge is obsolete, so the reviewers had a good point to make you publish Rmeas instead. Rmeas should replace Rmerge in my opinion.
The data statistics you sent show a mulltiplicity of about 20! Did you check your data for radiation damage? That might explain why your Rmeas is so utterly high while your I/sigI is still above 2 (You should not cut your data but include more!) What do the statistics look like if you process just about enough frames so that you get a reasonable mulltiplicity, 3-4, say? Cheers, Tim On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 10:57:37AM -0700, Maia Cherney wrote: > I see, there is no consensus about my data. Some people say 2.4A, > other say all. Well, I chose 2.3 A. My rule was to be a little bit > below Rmerg 100%. At 2.3A Rmerg was 98.7% > Actually, I have published my paper in JMB. Yes, reviewers did not > like that and even made me give Rrim and Rpim etc. > > Maia > > > > Bernhard Rupp (Hofkristallrat a.D.) wrote: > >First of all I would ask a XDS expert for that because I don't know exactly > >what stats the XDS program reports (shame on me, ok) nor what the quality of > >your error model is, or what you want to use the data for (I guess > >refinement - see Eleanor's response for that, and use all data). > > > >There is one point I'd like to make re cutoff: If one gets greedy and > >collects too much noise in high resolution shells (like way below <I/sigI> = > >0.8 or so) the scaling/integration may suffer from an overabundance of > >nonsense data, and here I believe it makes sense to select a higher cutoff > >(like what exactly?) and reprocess the data. Maybe one of our data > >collection specialist should comment on that. > > > >BR > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Maia > >Cherney > >Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 9:13 AM > >To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK > >Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] I/sigmaI of >3.0 rule > > > >I have to resend my statistics. > > > >Maia Cherney wrote: > >>Dear Bernhard > >> > >>I am wondering where I should cut my data off. Here is the > >>statistics from XDS processing. > >> > >>Maia > >> > >>> > >>>On 11-03-03 04:29 AM, Roberto Battistutta wrote: > >>>>Dear all, > >>>>I got a reviewer comment that indicate the "need to refine > >>>>the structures > >>>at an appropriate resolution (I/sigmaI of>3.0), and re-submit > >>>the revised coordinate files to the PDB for validation.". In > >>>the manuscript I present some crystal structures determined by > >>>molecular replacement using the same protein in a different > >>>space group as search model. Does anyone know the origin or > >>>the theoretical basis of this "I/sigmaI>3.0" rule for an > >>>appropriate resolution? > >>>>Thanks, > >>>>Bye, > >>>>Roberto. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>Roberto Battistutta > >>>>Associate Professor > >>>>Department of Chemistry > >>>>University of Padua > >>>>via Marzolo 1, 35131 Padova - ITALY > >>>>tel. +39.049.8275265/67 > >>>>fax. +39.049.8275239 > >>>>roberto.battistu...@unipd.it > >>>>www.chimica.unipd.it/roberto.battistutta/ > >>>>VIMM (Venetian Institute of Molecular Medicine) via Orus 2, > >>>>35129 Padova - ITALY tel. +39.049.7923236 fax > >>>>+39.049.7923250 www.vimm.it > >>>> > > > > -- -- Tim Gruene Institut fuer anorganische Chemie Tammannstr. 4 D-37077 Goettingen phone: +49 (0)551 39 22149 GPG Key ID = A46BEE1A
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
