Look at the aimless plot of CCanom . That is the best indicator I think and very sensitive when you have such high redundancy Eleanor
On 25 Apr 2014, at 22:13, Jim Pflugrath wrote: > <d"/sig> should be above 0.80 > > There seems to be plenty of signal there with all values above 1.02. We have > solved structures with less multiplicity and lower <d"/sig>. > > There is a different criteria of "signal" for when you know the positions of > the anomalous substructure atoms and when you need to find the positions of > the anomalous substructure atoms. > > As for "no signal", I think I am on record that there is always an anomalous > signal. :) But can you detect it? > > Jim > > From: CCP4 bulletin board [[email protected]] on behalf of Faisal Tarique > [[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 4:06 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [ccp4bb] anomalous signal > > Dear all > > sorry about my previous mail where i forgot to mention that the data was > collected on home source at Cuk alpha and at 1.54A. > > written below is the log file of an anomalous data processed through > SHELXC..my question is ..what is the strength of anomalous signal ?? as it is > said "For zero signal <d'/sig> and <d"/sig> should be about 0.80". Then in > the present case is there really a signal or can be assumed no signal..we are > expecting one Ca atom bound to the protein at its active site..the redundancy > of the data is 11.6..with this signal strength can we assume Ca to be present > there or whatever little anomalous if present is due to something else....or > there is no signal at all ??... > > Resl. Inf - 8.0 - 6.0 - 5.0 - 4.0 - 3.8 - 3.6 - 3.4 - 3.2 - 3.0 - 2.8 - 2.60 > N(data) 375 493 580 1319 450 538 679 866 1081 1414 1709 > <I/sig> 58.8 38.6 32.6 38.3 27.7 27.2 21.9 18.4 12.6 9.5 6.1 > %Complete 94.7 99.0 99.3 99.5 100.0 99.6 99.7 99.8 99.6 99.6 90.9 > <d"/sig> 1.65 1.27 1.18 1.25 1.19 1.12 1.11 1.11 0.97 1.02 1.05 > > -- > Regards > > Faisal > School of Life Sciences > JNU
