*** For details on how to be removed from this list visit the ***
*** CCP4 home page http://www.ccp4.ac.uk ***
Hi Ashima,
With these statistics you shouldn't have to worry about reviewers, it
looks perfectly sensible. Actually I'm much more concerned about the
recent epidemic of overly pessimistic resolution cutoffs. In our journal
club at least half the papers have I/SigI in the highest resolution bin
in the 3-6 range which means they could have gotten significantly higher
resolution. There are situations where data quality is more important
than resolution, for instance (anomalous) phasing, but I see the same
with many native data sets.
It is not clear to me if people are placing the detector too far from
the crystal and thus not even measure the highest resolution data or
that they just elect not to process those data. Why??? To get nicer
looking statistics???? That would be VERY bad practice!!!
A kinder view is that the detector distance is set based on the apparent
resolution of the first image(s) which underestimates the true
resolution of a high redundancy data set. If you don't need a long
detector distance to resolve spots I prefer to select a distance where
my visible diffraction uses the central 80-90% of the detector allowing
mosflm to try to extract some sensible information from beyond what the
eye can see.
This looks like something James Holton may have looked at. If so I'd be
interested to hear if he or the elves have come up with a magic rule.
Bart
Ashima Bagaria wrote:
*** For details on how to be removed from this list visit the ***
*** CCP4 home page http://www.ccp4.ac.uk ***
HI all,
In regards to my CCP4 question about the acceptable Rmerge values in
last resolution shell..various other parameters pertaining to the protein
data at 3.5 A are
I/sigmaI = 13.1 (2.3)
%completeness = 95.7(96.8)
multiplicity = 3.8
All suggestions are welcome
Regards
ashima
