Begin forwarded message:
> From: Eleanor Dodson <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] CC1/2, XDS and resolution cut off > Date: 8 August 2012 10:10:55 GMT+01:00 > To: Marcus Fislage <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > > Like Ian, I tend to use as much data as is reasonable - but it is useful to > look at the Rfactors plot again resolution in REFMAC output. If this shoots > sky high at the limit, the data is probably not very useful in refinement or > map calculation (and will automatically be down-weghted by the ML weighting) > . So all it does is make your Rfactors look worse! > Eleanor > On 6 Aug 2012, at 12:21, Marcus Fislage wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> We have in our lab a data set collected and are discussing where to cut >> the resolution for refinement. According to the work of Kai Diederichs >> and Andy Karplus one should use CC 1/2 of 12.5% (in case it is >> significant) to determine the highest resolution independent of the >> I/sigI and R factor rules used earlier. But I would like to know if this >> also counts for low completeness data? >> The problem is that we have in the highest resolution shell an I/sigI of >> 4, a good cc1/2 but only a completeness of 30%. Which I guess means we >> measured the high resolution data very accurate but not complete. Would >> you still use the low complete data in the highest resolution shell or >> should that be still a valid argument to cut your data towards lower >> resolution? >> My guess would be to use the data still even if the completeness drops, >> since the data we measured is good and according to CC1/2 significant. >> Are we right to do so or would you disagree? >> >> Thanks for any input >> Marcus >> >> -- >> Marcus Fislage >> Structural Biology Brussels >> Vrije Universiteit Brussel >> Department of Structural Biology, VIB >> Oefenplein, Gebouw E >> Pleinlaan 2, >> 1050 Brussel >> Belgium >> Tel: +32-2-629 18 51 >> Email : [email protected] >> Url: http://www.verseeslab.structuralbiology.be >
