Hi Kay means, of course, the ACA meeting in Albuquerque, not the IUCr in Montreal!
Authors of the major processing packages will be competing for your attention... Harry -- ** note change of address ** Dr Harry Powell, MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Francis Crick Avenue, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, CB2 0QH Chairman of European Crystallographic Association SIG9 (Crystallographic Computing) > On 23 Feb 2014, at 07:55, Kay Diederichs <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Projects and problems like this are clearly a justification for asking to > deposit not only the results from data processing, but also the raw data > frames. These would allow developers to improve the models underlying their > algorithms, and to find those corner cases where the algorithms break. That > would help everyone. > > Maybe you could make this dataset (and sequence) available for the > forthcoming IUCr conference, as an example for a difficult dataset? (send > email to Ed Collins or me) You would profit from the fact that experienced > crystallographers do their best to make the most of your data. > > best, > > Kay > >> On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 20:13:33 -0600, Chris Fage <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Thanks for the assistance, everyone. >> >> For those who suggested XDS: I forgot to mention that I have tried Mosfim, >> which is also better than spot fitting than HKL2000. How does XDS compare >> to Mosflm in this regard? >> >> I am not refining the high R-factor structure with NCS options. Also, my >> unit cell dimensions are 41.74 A, 69.27 A, and 83.56 A, so there isn't one >> particularly long axis. >> >> I'm guessing the low completeness of the 1.65 angstrom dataset has to do >> with obstacles the processing software encountered on a sizable wedge of >> frames (there were swaths of in red in HKL2000). I'm not sure why this >> dataset in particular was less complete than the others. >> >> Thanks, >> Chris >> >> >>> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 6:41 PM, Chris Fage <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Dear CCP4BB Users, >>> >>> I recently collected a number of datasets from plate-shaped crystals >>> that diffracted to 1.9-2.0 angstroms and yielded very nice electron >>> density maps. There is no major density unaccounted for by the model; >>> however, I am unable to decrease Rwork and Rfree beyond ~0.25 and >>> ~0.30, respectively. Probably due to the more 2-dimensional nature of >>> my crystals, there is a range of phi angles in which the reflections >>> are smeared, and I am wondering if the problem lies therein. >>> >>> I would be grateful if anyone could provide advice for improving my >>> refinement statistics, as I was under the impression that the >>> R-factors should be ~5% lower for the given resolution. >>> >>> A few more pieces of information: >>> -Space group = P21, with 2 monomers per asymmetric unit; >>> -Chi square = 1.0-1.5; >>> -Rmerge = 0.10-0.15; >>> -Data were processed in HKL2000 and refined in Refmac5 and/or >>> phenix.refine; >>> -PHENIX Xtriage does not detect twinning, but hints at possible weak >>> translational pseudosymmetry; >>> -I was previously able to grow one atypically thick crystal which >>> diffracted to 1.65 angstroms with Rwork/Rfree at 0.18/0.22. >>> Unfortunately, the completeness of the dataset was only ~90%. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Chris >>
