I think the answer to your question depends on why the data is
incomplete.
James
On Mar 17, 2008, at 3:06 AM, Melody Lin wrote:
Hi all,
I have always been wondering... for a data set diffracting to say
2.15 Angstrom but in the highest resolution shell (2.25-2.15) the
completeness is
Hi all,
I have always been wondering... for a data set diffracting to say
2.15Angstrom but in the highest resolution shell (
2.25-2.15) the completeness is 74%, should I use merge all the data and call
it a 2.15 A dataset or I should cut the data set to say 2.25 A where the
highest resolution
Hi Melody,
There was a nice discussion in this year's ccp4 study weekend. In
general, one needs to consider several factors.. If you were at 3A, or
low symmetry, you would of course try to get the maximum out of it, on
the other hand, there are requirements for experimental phasing.. in
general,
well, redundancy for the highest shell is 4.8, I/sigma is 3, Rmerge for
overall is 0.08 for highest shell is 0.336. I/sigma and Rmerge don't seem
quite nice...
thanks.
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 11:51 AM, Partha Chakrabarti [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi Melody,
There was a nice discussion in this
Looks ok I guess.. for the highest shell, if Rmerge is less than 0.45
and I/sigma is about 2, it is worth a try.. as James said,
completeness might be from why it is incomplete.. is it something like
C2?
experts might tell us more..
Best, Partha
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 11:03 AM, Melody Lin
Melody Lin wrote:
Hi all,
I have always been wondering... for a data set diffracting to say 2.15
Angstrom but in the highest resolution shell (2.25-2.15) the
completeness is 74%, should I use merge all the data and call it a 2.15
A dataset or I should cut the data set to say 2.25 A where the
On Mon, 2008-03-17 at 10:51 +, Partha Chakrabarti wrote:
Not just one of them. If you are pushing it too far, you will see the
effect in later refinement step..
And the effect in later refinement step will be the slight increase in
R-factor? IMHO, this does not justify throwing away data
I would use all the data myself and report that the model was built from a
a dataset with 74% completeness in the 2.25 to 2.15 Anngstrom shell. I
would not put the number 2.15 A in the manuscript title nor in the poster
title.
For me the acceptable completeness is 90% in the highest
Redundancy of 4.8 for a 74% complete shell (if I understand which
shell these stats are for) suggests you have assumed too much symmetry
and are rejecting a lot of reflections during scaling. Is this the
case? The I/sigma suggests you could drop the symmetry and re-scale
without losing a
Hi -
I would tend to argue as follows:
An I/sigI of 3, and Rmerge of 33.6% are most definitely acceptable
values with a redundancy of 4.8. Thus, despite the 74% completeness,
that data are most definitely useful and should be included in
refinement.
A good question now is why is the
Dear all,
Thank you very much for the useful suggestions! I definitely learned a lot
from these discussions. Now looking back at my datasets, I think the
incompleteness likely results from high mosaicity (1.009) and anisotropy of
the crystal. Detector is square, but the distance is short enough
11 matches
Mail list logo
