***  For details on how to be removed from this list visit the  ***
***          CCP4 home page http://www.ccp4.ac.uk         ***


Dear Ian,

now I see what you want (my inital reply didn't go through to ccp4bb
... yet ... seems to happen to me on a regular basis). 

I think the problem might be definitions: in $CCP4/doc/mtzformat.doc
you see that a column of type 'F' is a 'structure amplitude' (should
probably read 'structure factor amplitude'. And according to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amplitude, 'Amplitude is a nonnegative
scalar'.

So to have non-negative amplitudes we need to change the phase, which
(again $CCP4/doc/mtzformat.doc) is 'phase angle in degrees' (no
restrictions here, although something like '0 <= x < 360' _or_ '-180 <=
x < 180' might be good.

So it is possible that a lot of MTZ reading programs will give you
problems if they encounter a negative F column. 

Obviously, we could avoid all this by giving two reals (column type
'R') for map calculation: the real and imaginary part of the structure
factor. But then applying a weight is a bit more messy (if it needs to
be applied) ... Oh dear!

It looks to me as a case of 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' - but
with some effort in clarifying documentations.

Cheers

Clemens




On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 03:11:14PM +0100, Ian Tickle wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Clemens Vonrhein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > Sent: 21 October 2005 14:37
> > To: Ian Tickle
> > Subject: Re: [ccp4bb]: Phase columns in SigmaA & Refmac.
> > 
> > Hi Ian,
> > 
> > I just realised that I might have misunderstood your remark: you want
> > to have more columns in the MTZ file and not 'getting rid of the 2
> > superfluous phase columns'? So are you concerned with the SigmaA
> > (PARTIAL option) being wrong?
> > 
> > Cheers
> > 
> > Clemens (confused by the last two messages ... that came after I
> > answered)
> 
> 
> Hi Clemens
> 
> No my suggestion is to have exactly the same number of columns as now
> with identical labels.  However phase columns which carried the same
> info would contain identical values.  I think in the case of Refmac only
> 2 columns, not 3, carry the same info: PHWT & PHDELWT; PHIC doesn't
> include the solvent contribution so it will be different.
> 
> As an aside, arguably FC/PHIC should contain the solvent contribution
> (in which case the PHIC column will be redundant), since we use it to
> compute Fc maps for real-space density correlation with 2mFo-DFc maps
> and ideally we should be correlating estimates of the same thing!
> 
> I don't agree that there's no redundancy: in SigmaA(COMBINE) PHCMB,
> PHFWT & PHDELWT are all the same phase before being shifted because of
> -ve amplitude, and similarly one of PHWT & PHDELWT is redundant in
> Refmac.  Of courser redundancy isn't the issue, it's the potential for
> making mistakes that's important.
> 
> Here's an example from a Refmac output MTZ file:
> 
> NOW
> ===
>     H   K   L FreeR_flag     F       SIGF      FC       PHIC       FWT
>                   PHWT    DELFWT   PHDELWT     FOM
> 
>     1   3   1     9.00    419.24     14.61    689.35    356.32     61.66
>                 349.81    189.62    169.81      0.60
> 
>     1   3   2    14.00    677.57     19.02    154.17    328.72    181.24
>                 118.08     57.65    118.08      0.18
> 
>     1   3   4     8.00    996.96     26.22    683.30    326.94   1212.98
>                 323.20    323.31    323.20      0.89
> 
> 
> MY SUGGESTION
> =============
> 
>     H   K   L FreeR_flag     F       SIGF      FC       PHIC       FWT
>                   PHWT    DELFWT   PHDELWT     FOM
> 
>     1   3   1     9.00    419.24     14.61    689.35    356.32     61.66
>                 349.81   -189.62    349.81      0.60
> 
>     1   3   2    14.00    677.57     19.02    154.17    328.72   -181.24
>                 298.08    -57.65    298.08      0.18
> 
>     1   3   4     8.00    996.96     26.22    683.30    326.94   1212.98
>                 323.20    323.31    323.20      0.89
> 
> 
> Focus on the FWT, PHWT, DELFWT & PHDELWT columns.  In the 1st case the
> F's are all +ve and the PHWT & PHDELWT are in general different.  In the
> 2nd case, some F's are -ve but the PHWT & PHDELWT columns are identical
> (so it doesn't matter which you choose).  These datasets will of course
> produce identical maps!
> 
> Cheers
> 
> -- Ian
> 
> **********************************************************************
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE 
> This email contains confidential information and may be otherwise protected 
> by law. Its content should not be disclosed and it should not be given or 
> copied to anyone other than the person(s) named or referenced above. If you 
> have received this email in error, please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> **********************************************************************
> 

Content-Description: m.dat
> [-- octet-filter file type: "ASCII text" --]
> 
>     H   K   L FreeR_flag     F       SIGF      FC       PHIC       FWT
>                   PHWT    DELFWT   PHDELWT     FOM
> 
>     1   3   1     9.00    419.24     14.61    689.35    356.32     61.66
>                 349.81    189.62    169.81      0.60
> 
>     1   3   2    14.00    677.57     19.02    154.17    328.72    181.24
>                 118.08     57.65    118.08      0.18
> 
>     1   3   4     8.00    996.96     26.22    683.30    326.94   1212.98
>                 323.20    323.31    323.20      0.89
> 
> 
>     H   K   L FreeR_flag     F       SIGF      FC       PHIC       FWT
>                   PHWT    DELFWT   PHDELWT     FOM
> 
>     1   3   1     9.00    419.24     14.61    689.35    356.32     61.66
>                 349.81   -189.62    349.81      0.60
> 
>     1   3   2    14.00    677.57     19.02    154.17    328.72   -181.24
>                 298.08    -57.65    298.08      0.18
> 
>     1   3   4     8.00    996.96     26.22    683.30    326.94   1212.98
>                 323.20    323.31    323.20      0.89

Content-Description: m.dat
> [-- octet-filter file type: "ASCII text" --]
> 
>     H   K   L FreeR_flag     F       SIGF      FC       PHIC       FWT
>                   PHWT    DELFWT   PHDELWT     FOM
> 
>     1   3   1     9.00    419.24     14.61    689.35    356.32     61.66
>                 349.81    189.62    169.81      0.60
> 
>     1   3   2    14.00    677.57     19.02    154.17    328.72    181.24
>                 118.08     57.65    118.08      0.18
> 
>     1   3   4     8.00    996.96     26.22    683.30    326.94   1212.98
>                 323.20    323.31    323.20      0.89
> 
> 
>     H   K   L FreeR_flag     F       SIGF      FC       PHIC       FWT
>                   PHWT    DELFWT   PHDELWT     FOM
> 
>     1   3   1     9.00    419.24     14.61    689.35    356.32     61.66
>                 349.81   -189.62    349.81      0.60
> 
>     1   3   2    14.00    677.57     19.02    154.17    328.72   -181.24
>                 298.08    -57.65    298.08      0.18
> 
>     1   3   4     8.00    996.96     26.22    683.30    326.94   1212.98
>                 323.20    323.31    323.20      0.89


-- 

***************************************************************
* Clemens Vonrhein, Ph.D.     vonrhein AT GlobalPhasing DOT com
*
*  Global Phasing Ltd.
*  Sheraton House, Castle Park 
*  Cambridge CB3 0AX, UK
*--------------------------------------------------------------
* BUSTER Development Group      (http://www.globalphasing.com)
***************************************************************

Reply via email to