On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 07:08:14PM +0100, Partha Chakrabarti wrote:
Is it by any chance that the FOMs were highly overestimated and that
creates a problem with Maximum likelihood? That sort of reminds me of
what I had heard for SHARP-solomon in a couple of instances..
The FOMs are never used
of over-refinement?),
or in this case better say tautology.
stefano
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:50:13 +0100
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] too good R/Rfree with resolve
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 07:08:14PM +0100
Hi,
Just a newbie question:
Could someone explain what might have gone wrong in this case? I guess
the structure factors should not change anyway! I am a bit confused
because I have used solve resolve several times for experimental
phasing, never had such a problem, on the other hand, have not
Hi Partha,
It sounds to me as though the amplitudes that were given to resolve as FP
may have been calculated ones. The FP and SIGFP written out by resolve
are normally the same as those that are input, and so you can use them in
refinement in most circumstances. You are always safest to do as
Dear CCP4bb readers,
this is my problem:
I solved a structure by MR: the solution was easily found (molrep, phaser and
balbes found always the same one), density looked generally reasonable (however
in several places it was dubious) but R/Rfree were stuck at 42/47%.
Then I tried some density
