CC alone wouldn't be totally sufficient. CC is scale independent. For example, if you compare two very weak densities, say visible at below 0.1 sigma, and If these densities are similar enough then you will still get good CC.
Therefore it's good to use CC and map values together. This is exactly why phenix comprehensive validation prints you a list of map CC and 2mFo-DFc and mFo-DFc map values per atom or per residue (depending on resolution). It's good to use bias-free maps for this. There is no need to mention how to obtain those maps - there are plenty of literature on this subject. Pavel. On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Jacob Keller < j-kell...@fsm.northwestern.edu> wrote: > On the surface it doesn't seem as bad as others, i.e., it does not > seem to be a real fake--perhaps just a strong form of wishful thinking > and creative density interpretation. I wonder what would be a good > metric in which to establish a cutoff for present/not present in > density. CC, maybe? > > Jacob > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 4:01 PM, David Schuller <dj...@cornell.edu> wrote: > > Time to fuel up the gossip engines for the approaching weekend: > > > > > > http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096921260800186X > > > > RETRACTED: Structure of the Parathyroid Hormone Receptor C Terminus Bound > to > > the G-Protein Dimer Gβ1γ2 > > Structure, Volume 16, Issue 7, 9 July 2008, Pages 1086-1094 > > Structure 2QNS withdrawn. > > > > -- > > ======================================================================= > > All Things Serve the Beam > > ======================================================================= > > David J. Schuller > > modern man in a post-modern world > > MacCHESS, Cornell University > > schul...@cornell.edu > > > > > > -- > ******************************************* > Jacob Pearson Keller > Northwestern University > Medical Scientist Training Program > cel: 773.608.9185 > email: j-kell...@northwestern.edu > ******************************************* >
