Hi Grant, This is part of the recurring side chain discussion. There is no consensus in the community about what the optimal approach is. In your current approach you are adding a model parameter (occupancy) to improve the fit with the experimental data (remove negative difference density). You should ask yourself whether you really need to add that parameter. Are you not overfitting? Is there any clear evidence that the atoms are not always there? The alternative model you propose (full occupancy, high B) has fewer parameters and explains more of the strucure (you account for all atoms the protein has, prior knowledge). This model probably also better reflects the uncertainty of the coordinates of the side chains involved. If your B-factor restraints are not too tight, the difference densitty should also disappear (equal explanation of the experimental data). To me that would be a better model.
HTH, Robbie Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 23:36:56 +0000 From: [email protected] Subject: [ccp4bb] occupancy vs. Bfactors To: [email protected] Hello all, I'm currently working on a structure which if I stub a certain side chain phenix/coot shows me a large green blob which looks strikingly similar to the side chain, when I put it in and run another refinement the blob turns red. Basically I was just playing around and I changed the occupancy of the side chain and now there are no complaints. But I was thinking, should I haven changed the Bfactors instead? Should I have left well enough alone? If I lower the occupancy manually and do not include alternate confirmations have I introduced modelling bias? Could someone recommend some good articles I could read on exactly how to correctly fix this problem. Thanks, GM
