Hi all,
Actually, what I think has happened here is that Phaser has limited the
resolution to what it estimated was needed to get a clear enough solution, and
then the final refinement was carried out with all the data. The
signal-to-noise is lower with limited data, but it’s a price that
The Z-values may be marginal, but of course you should inspect the
solution in Coot to see if the electron density makes sense, and the
packing of the protein molecules in the unit cell (look at symmetry
mates) is sensible. If this passes the sniff test, then you should clean
up your model
Hi Jeorge -
Something seems to have changed for the worse in this MR run. In your
earlier posting, where you failed to find a solution in P222, your log
file had solutions with RFZ=23.4, generally a clear indication of a
correct rotation function solution. (You didn't include this log file
Thank you so much to all for your kind concern.
Jeorge
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Kay Diederichs
kay.diederi...@uni-konstanz.de wrote:
Dear Jeorge,
you'll find some information about this in
http://strucbio.biologie.uni-konstanz.de/xdswiki/index.php/Space_group_determination
. A
Dear Jeorge,
you'll find some information about this in
http://strucbio.biologie.uni-konstanz.de/xdswiki/index.php/Space_group_determination
. A practical and easy way is described in
http://strucbio.biologie.uni-konstanz.de/xdswiki/index.php/Pointless
HTH,
Kay
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 11:24:27
Dear Jeorge,
XDS make no claim to determine the SPACE GROUP but rather the LAUE
GROUP, as only the latter is taken into account during data integration.
This is definitely so during the indexing step (IDXREF.LP), but even in
CORRECT, when systematic absences are sometimes indicated, XDS does not
Dear Jeorge,
I can’t see anything in that output saying whether the systematic absences that
would allow you to detect screw axes were covered in your data collection.
In any case, it’s not necessary to reintegrate. All that happens when going
from P222 to any one of the other 7 possible
