I agree completely! The higher resolution data is determined
entirely by the atoms with low B factor. If fact, the Wilson B plots
I've seen have a distinct curve to them -- They are not straight lines.
As one looks to higher and higher resolution the curve gets shallower
and shallower. You
Hi Edward
This is because taking a naive straight arithmetic average of the B factors
as all the programs do is nonsense! To simplify your argument say we have
just 2 atoms with B = 10 and 1000. What's the average B? Answer: not 505
but very close to 10 because the atom with B=1000 most likely
What if you have one domain with many B-factors aroun 70 and above, and another
domain with B-factors around 20? The atoms with high B-factor will make
essentially no contribution to the intensty of spots beyond 3 A, and so have no
effect on the slope of the Wilson plot byond that. But they
Le Mardi 12 Mars 2019 19:55 CET, Dale Tronrud a écrit:
Dale
Good to have the opportunity of going back to the crystallography of the
fifties in these post-modern times...
There is an essential argumentation that should be recalled. The only reason
for the fact that one ignores low-resolution
> I do not believe comparing the average B to the Wilson B has any
> utility at all.
>
> Dale Tronrud
There are not many times that reading a CCP4bb posting makes me laugh out loud,
but this one made my day. Thanks!
Diana
**
Diana R. Tomchick
The numeric average of the B factors of the atoms in your model only
roughly corresponds to the calculation of the Wilson B. While I always
expect the average B to be larger than the Wilson B, how much larger
depends on many factors, making it a fairly useless criteria for judging
the
Dear CCP4bb community,
The average B-factor (calculated from model) of my protein is 65, whereas the
Wilson B is 52. I have read in this BB that "it is expected that average B does
not deviate strongly from the Wilson B". How I can evaluate if the difference
calculated for my data is
