Thanks for all your replies. Have a good weekend! On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Kay Diederichs < [email protected]> wrote:
> As Eleanor and Gerard explained - perhaps there is a reason that some > frames are really bad. > > But it could just as well be that the crystal diffracts anisotropically, > and those frames with high Rmerge correspond to a weak region of reciprocal > space. In this case, it would be quite counterproductive to remove them, > since the best you can do is to increase the multiplicity, which should > lead to improved accuracy of the data. > > The program xdscc12 allows you to find out the influence of frames on the > CC1/2 in a user-specified number of resolution range. This would tell you > if those frames deteriorate your merged data, or not. Rmerge is the wrong > value to look at. > > best, > > Kay > > On Thu, 9 Nov 2017 14:04:36 -0500, CPMAS Chen <[email protected]> wrote: > > >Hi All, > > > >Is there a way to reject diffraction images based on Rmerge? > > > >When I processed my data with XDS, I use AIMLESS in CCP4 to get merged, > >truncated data. However, there is quite some images with high Rmerge, say > >larger than 1. Is there a keyword I can use to reject these images based a > >Rmerge cut-off, say 0.6? > > > >Thanks! > > > >Charles > > > >-- > > > >*************************************************** > > > >Charles Chen, Ph. D > > > >Research Associate > > > >University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine > > > >Department of Anesthesiology > > > >****************************************************** > > > -- *************************************************** Charles Chen Research Associate University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine Department of Anesthesiology ******************************************************
