I would say CC-anom > 0.3 or even 0.2 (note that the scala CC-anom is defined on I not F)
Phil On 29 Jun 2010, at 14:37, Frank von Delft wrote: > I've found the scala CC-anom significantly underestimates the anomalous > signal, relative to e.g. xprep. I don't know why that is, but the latter > seems to agree with what shelxd is happy with. > > Cheers > phx > > > > > On 29/06/2010 10:35, Graeme Winter wrote: >> Hi Murugan, >> >> One useful indicator of raw anomalous signal is the ANOMPLOT graph >> from Scala - this shows the differences between reflections compared >> with the expected differences. If the gradient of the plot is 1 >> there's no more differences that you would expect. If the gradient is >> more than one there is (or may be.) - also check out the merging >> statistics as a function of batch, if there's significant radiation >> damage this may mess things up. >> >> Scala writes out the gradient (assuming you told it anomalous on) in the >> summary >> >> Another rule-of-thumb is the resolution limit where cc-anom is> 0.5. >> >> The most practical indicator of the anomalous signal is of course the >> success or failure of the subsequent phasing :o) >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Graeme >> >> On 29 June 2010 10:05, Vandu Murugan<wandumuru...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> I have collected a 2.7 angstrom home source data with Cu-Kalpha source >>> for a protein with 6 cysteines, with a multiplicity of around 23. I need to >>> know, is there any significant anamolous signal present in the data set, >>> since there is no good model for my protein. Can any one tell, which >>> program to run, and what parameter to see? Thanks in advance. >>> >>> cheers, >>> Murugan >>> >>>
