-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Dear Sebastiano,

if the output of GO.COM produces an mtz-file you can use for phasing
or refinement, I am very confident there is a scaling step involved.
This might also be an explanation for the discrepancy you point out:
With FRIEDEL'S_LAW=TRUE the statistics which affects the rejection of
outliers would have more reflections within each group of symmetry
related reflections and hence a greater spread which might lead to the
rejection of some of the classes. But this is a mere guess.

Cheers,
Tim

On 01/16/2013 02:03 PM, Sebastiano Pasqualato wrote:
> 
> Thanks to Kay and Tim or the feedback.
> 
> The reason I wanted to get statistics from the CORRECT step of XDS
> is that I have refined a structure using the mtz output by the
> GO.COM automatic reduction routine of SLS beamline PXIII, which
> does not involve a scaling step (I discovered recently). I was
> willing to have the integration statistics of the reflection file I
> used in the refinement's high resolution bin. I will definitely
> give xprep a try.
> 
> Another question that raised by looking deeper into their automatic
> procedure (thanks Meitian for the help) is that when integrating
> with XDS CORRECT keeping the FRIEDEL'S_LAW=TRUE or =FALSE I get a
> different number of reflections in the final mtz.
> 
> In my case, if I run the same XDS.INP script and change only the
> FRIEDEL'S_LAW flag, I obtain:
> 
> 
> =TRUE: 11551 reflections
> 
> *  Resolution Range :
> 
> 0.00043    0.11138     (     48.225 -      2.996 A )
> 
> * Sort Order :
> 
> 1     2     3     0     0
> 
> * Space group = 'P 3 2 1' (number     150)
> 
> 
> 
> OVERALL FILE STATISTICS for resolution range   0.000 -   0.111 
> =======================
> 
> 
> Col Sort    Min    Max    Num      %     Mean     Mean   Resolution
> Type Column num order               Missing complete          abs.
> Low    High       label
> 
> 1 ASC      0      29      0  100.00     13.7     13.7  48.22   3.00
> H  H 2 NONE     0      16      0  100.00      4.7      4.7  48.22
> 3.00   H  K 3 NONE   -32      32      0  100.00      0.5     12.2
> 48.22   3.00   H  L 4 NONE    1.4   292.0     0  100.00    19.40
> 19.40  48.22   3.00   F  FP 5 NONE    0.1     4.3     0  100.00
> 0.70     0.70  48.22   3.00   Q  SIGFP 6 NONE    0.0     1.0     0
> 100.00     0.95     0.95  48.22   3.00   I  FreeRflag
> 
> 
> No. of reflections used in FILE STATISTICS    11551
> 
> 
> =FALSE: 11643 reflections
> 
> * Cell Dimensions : (obsolete - refer to dataset cell dimensions
> above)
> 
> 100.5450  100.5450   96.4500   90.0000   90.0000  120.0000
> 
> *  Resolution Range :
> 
> 0.00043    0.11138     (     48.225 -      2.996 A )
> 
> * Sort Order :
> 
> 1     2     3     0     0
> 
> * Space group = 'P 3 2 1' (number     150)
> 
> 
> 
> OVERALL FILE STATISTICS for resolution range   0.000 -   0.111 
> =======================
> 
> 
> Col Sort    Min    Max    Num      %     Mean     Mean   Resolution
> Type Column num order               Missing complete          abs.
> Low    High       label
> 
> 1 ASC      0      29      0  100.00     13.7     13.7  48.22   3.00
> H  H 2 NONE     0      16      0  100.00      4.7      4.7  48.22
> 3.00   H  K 3 NONE   -32      32      0  100.00      0.5     12.2
> 48.22   3.00   H  L 4 NONE    1.4   291.9     0  100.00    19.40
> 19.40  48.22   3.00   F  FP 5 NONE    0.1     4.3     0  100.00
> 0.67     0.67  48.22   3.00   Q  SIGFP 6 NONE  -13.6    13.2    69
> 99.41    -0.01     0.69  48.22   3.00   D  DANO 7 NONE    0.0
> 5.7    69   99.41     1.13     1.13  48.22   3.00   Q  SIGDANO 8
> NONE     0       2      0  100.00      0.0      0.0  48.22   3.00
> Y  ISYM 9 NONE    0.0     1.0     0  100.00     0.95     0.95
> 48.22   3.00   I  FreeRflag
> 
> 
> No. of reflections used in FILE STATISTICS    11643
> 
> 
> Aren't they supposed to be the exact same number?
> 
> Thanks, ciao, s
> 
> 
> On Jan 16, 2013, at 1:12 PM, Tim Gruene <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> 
> Dear Sebastiano,
> 
> you could use xprep to get the statistics in user defined
> resolution shells.
> 
> Out of curiosity: Would you mind sharing why you want to do this
> and why you don't want to use the XSCALE statistics instead? The 
> statistics are probably more meaningful after scaling, I guess.
> 
> Best, Tim
> 
> On 01/15/2013 04:22 PM, Sebastiano Pasqualato wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi all, I was wondering if XDS allows to change the number
>>>> of resolution bins appearing in the table:
>>>> 
>>>> SUBSET OF INTENSITY DATA WITH SIGNAL/NOISE >= -3.0 AS
>>>> FUNCTION OF RESOLUTION
>>>> 
>>>> of CORRECT.LP.
>>>> 
>>>> Please, note that I am not referring to the table output by
>>>> XSCALE, in which you can change the resolution bins with the
>>>> keyword RESOLUTION_SHELLS=, but rather the table output by
>>>> the CORRECT job of XDS.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks in advance, ciao, Sebastiano
>>>> 
>>>> 
> 
> 
> 

- -- 
- --
Dr Tim Gruene
Institut fuer anorganische Chemie
Tammannstr. 4
D-37077 Goettingen

GPG Key ID = A46BEE1A

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iD8DBQFQ9qj9UxlJ7aRr7hoRAic9AJ9P8Yg7qoSwtKETrt1uVV9zmzrddgCgz3Ub
Gd+HUldC4e4RDI7f7qzJtTw=
=xABX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Reply via email to