Dear Alexandre,
I read your paper and it seems very relevant to the present discussion (and
future referee comments). Have the criteria that you propose for determining
the effective resolution been implemented in any program or crystallographic
suite in way that we can read in a data set and get out the effective
resolution based on your criteria?
Cheers,
Boaz
Boaz Shaanan, Ph.D.
Dept. of Life Sciences
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
Beer-Sheva 84105
Israel
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: 972-8-647-2220 Skype: boaz.shaanan
Fax: 972-8-647-2992 or 972-8-646-1710
________________________________________
From: CCP4 bulletin board [[email protected]] on behalf of Alexandre
OURJOUMTSEV [[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2014 12:41 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] crystallographic confusion
Dear Dale, dear Kay,
last year, we discussed this kind of problems (Urzhumtseva et al., 2013, Acta
Cryst., D69, 1921-1934).
Our approach does not tell you where to cut your data and which reflections to
accept / reject but as soon as you have your set of reflections, you calculate
very formally and very strictly the "effective resolution" of ANY diffraction
data set, with ANY completeness, with ANY composition of measured / missed
reflections. For a complete data set, d_effective coincides with the d_high
value but is different for incomplete data sets. The article contains a number
of examples.
With this approach, the discussion of the completeness of the
highest-resolution shell becomes irrelevant; one can simply cite the "effective
resolution". I hope this can help.
With best regards,
Sacha Urzhumtsev
________________________________________
De : CCP4 bulletin board [[email protected]] de la part de Dale Tronrud
[[email protected]]
Envoyé : samedi 19 avril 2014 03:20
À : [email protected]
Objet : Re: [ccp4bb] crystallographic confusion
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
I see no problem with saying that the model was refined against every
spot on the detector that the data reduction program said was observed
(and I realize there is argument about this) but declare that the
"resolution of the model" is a number based on the traditional criteria.
Dale Tronrud
