Hello,
why do people and programs (like phaser) use the Matthews coefficient instead
of percentage of solvent content? The amount of information seems the same to me
and the coefficient is very cumbersome, whereas a percentage is obvious and it's
easy to imagine what it means.
Thanks for the
snip
it seems that we are trying to deposit one model to satisfy two
different purposes - one for model validation and the other for model
interpretation (use in docking etc), and what's good for one purpose
might not be necessarily good for the other.
/snip
This has been discussed before
The main reason for reporting the Matthews coefficient might be historical,
i.e. old fogeys are familiar with the numbers because that's the first way the
cell content was reported. People might have been reluctant to report the
solvent content in the old days because it requires making some
On Saturday 18 September 2010, Nicholas M Glykos wrote:
snip
it seems that we are trying to deposit one model to satisfy two
different purposes - one for model validation and the other for model
interpretation (use in docking etc), and what's good for one purpose
might not be
Dear All,
I would have a question regarding the effect of non-crystallographic
symmetry (NCS) on the data:parameter ratio in refinement.
I am working with X-ray data to a maximum resolution of 4.1-4.4
Angstroem, 79 % solvent content, in P6222 space group; with 22 300
unique reflections
