hierry
From: CCP4 bulletin board On Behalf Of Winter, Graeme
(DLSLtd,RAL,LSCI)
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2020 3:28 AM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] What resolution - X-ray diffraction round this time
EXTERNAL EMAIL – Use caution with any links or file attachments.
Hi Dusan,
I fully agree with this!
Best, Herman
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: CCP4 bulletin board Im Auftrag von Phoebe A. Rice
Gesendet: Freitag, 28. Februar 2020 17:03
An: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Betreff: [EXTERNAL] Re: [ccp4bb] What resolution - X-ray diffraction round this
time
EXTERNAL
But that wouldn’t incorporate other useful information, such as percentage
completeness in the outer shell and whether inclusion of the reflections in the
outer shell for refinement actually effects the resulting structural model and
map to a significant degree.
Diana
Can we get some momentum for the "standard table 1" including TWO numbers -
outer limit used in refinement, and nominal resolution based on some standard
such as I/sigI =2 (or 3, or whatever the community can agree on)? That would
hopefully cut down on all the reviewer complaints of overstated
Hi Dusan,
I don't know what the correct answer is but I think it is safe to see that your
referee has outdated views (trying to stay polite here). I/sigI > 2.0 with
decent completeness would be not be seen as to agressive by most (but as too
conservative by others!). From that cut-off you
Hi Dusan,
I am pretty sure
"It is well accepted that the criteria for resolution cutoff should consider
both I/SigI and Rmerge for the outer most shell. For data sets collected at
synchrotron sources, the criteria of I/SigI > 5 and Rmerge <50% can be taken as
a good practical reference.”
has
Hi,
Browsing through the recent discussion on EM data resolution cutoff it occurred
to me that the X-ray diffraction community isn’t that unanimous either.
My stand:
When the default resolution cutoff provided with the data processing software
in electron density map calculation and
