020 14:18
> To: Robbie Joosten
> Cc: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Completeness question
>
> Dear Robbie,
>
> On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 08:36:06AM +, Robbie Joosten wrote:
> > I've been looking at some recent PDB entries that have much lower
>
Dear Robbie,
On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 08:36:06AM +, Robbie Joosten wrote:
> I've been looking at some recent PDB entries that have much lower
> spherical) completeness than reported in the coordinate file. One
> reason for this is that the data were anisotropicly truncated,
> another reason is
Dear all,
On Mon, Jun 01, 2020 at 11:48:41PM +0200, vincent Chaptal wrote:
> since I've been contacted off line several times about this, I'm
> posting here the protocol to combine maps with 2 mtz files of
> original and truncated data.
If this is of wider interest (and since some of our tools
Good evening,
since I've been contacted off line several times about this, I'm posting
here the protocol to combine maps with 2 mtz files of original and
truncated data.
I went through this procedure as I wanted to include the maps, and this
was the tricky part of the procedure in my hands.
Dear all,
On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 03:40:53PM +0100, Eleanor Dodson wrote:
> My pennysworth. If you find your maps look better after the
> anisotroy correction use it, but it may be helpful to those wo want to mine
> your data if you deposit the whole sphere..
Agree (which is what e.g. we provide
Hi,
also agreed, but actually doing it proved a lot more tricky than I
initially thought.
For my last structure, which was very anisotropic, I deposited a mmcif
containing 1/ the originial data, 2/the truncated data and 3/ the map.
It proved impossible to create this file with the tools at
Also agree, see http://staraniso.globalphasing.org/deposition_about.html .
Cheers
-- Ian
On Sat, 30 May 2020 at 15:58, Robbie Joosten
wrote:
> I fully agree. Unfortunately, not everyone does that so cases like I
> described will keep appearing.
>
> Cheers,
> Robbie
>
> On 30 May 2020 16:40,
I fully agree. Unfortunately, not everyone does that so cases like I described will keep appearing. Cheers,RobbieOn 30 May 2020 16:40, Eleanor Dodson wrote:My pennysworth. If you find your maps look better after the anisotroy correction use it, but it may be helpful to those wo want to mine your
My pennysworth. If you find your maps look better after the
anisotroy correction use it, but it may be helpful to those wo want to mine
your data if you deposit the whole sphere..
eleanor
On Sat, 30 May 2020 at 09:36, Robbie Joosten
wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> I've been looking at some recent PDB
>>> Ian Tickle 05/30/20 7:14 AM >>>
>>(unless of course the completeness calculations were performed on two
different reflection files)?
EDS is in fact using a different dataset compared to the coordinates,
when I submit the output reflections.cif produced by phenix, when the
input I, sigma-I
Hi Ian,
> I don't see that anisotropic truncation has anything to do with the low
> spherical completeness as compared with the info in the co-ordinate file.
> Yes the spherical completeness after anisotropic truncation will be reduced,
> but why would it cause it to become inconsistent with that
Hi Robbie
I don't see that anisotropic truncation has anything to do with the low
spherical completeness as compared with the info in the co-ordinate file.
Yes the spherical completeness after anisotropic truncation will be
reduced, but why would it cause it to become inconsistent with that
Hi Everyone,
I've been looking at some recent PDB entries that have much lower spherical)
completeness than reported in the coordinate file. One reason for this is that
the data were anisotropicly truncated, another reason is some mess-up with the
deposition of the reflection data. There is a
13 matches
Mail list logo
