Hi,
I'm on Garib's side here. The way the maximum likelihood targets work, the
variances are defined relative to the average intensity in a resolution shell,
so if you change the falloff the variances will change in the same way. In
fact, one way to implement maximum likelihood refinement is
Dear Randy,
thanks for your comment - a good point with the likelihood target
estimated from E-values! So, in principle, there shouldn't be any
difference in maximum-likelihood refinement using sharpened data or not.
However, for curiosity, in one case at 4.3 A resolution and a sharpening
Or could anyone suggest a program that would be of help?
CAD scaling with a scale factor of 1.0 and negative B-factor (isotropic
or anisotropic) should do the trick. I haven't had much luck with
density sharpening (at least at ~4-5 Angstroms), but others have
apparently had some success
At 05:39 PM 2/25/2011, Pete Meyer wrote:
Or could anyone suggest a program that would be of help?
CAD scaling with a scale factor of 1.0 and negative B-factor (isotropic or
anisotropic) should do the trick. I haven't had much luck with density
sharpening (at least at ~4-5 Angstroms), but
I would not sharpen structure factors before refinement. It may cause problems
with B value refinement (a lot of B values may stuck around 2 or minimum B).
One must remember that not all atoms in crystal have same Bvalue. There is a
distribution of Bvalues.
However maps can be sharpened after
Hi All,
I've got data that go to only about 3.2 A and they're anisotropic, i.e. better
along c but worse along a and b. Heard that density sharpening may give
improvements.
I searched the BB for relevant info. It seems that Truncate has been modified
years ago to allow sharpening. Is it done
