Hi Petr,
You don't have to rely on automatically picked spots if you do not trust them.
Have you tried manually selecting spots and then limiting the high resolution
cutoff for indexing? Oftentimes that is sufficient to get past at least the
indexing step.
hope that helps,
Eric
__________________________
Eric Larson, PhD
Biomolecular Structure Center
Department of Biochemistry
Box 357742
University of Washington
Seattle, WA 98195
On Tue, 23 Nov 2010, Petr Kolenko wrote:
| Dear colleagues,
|
| I am working on one dataset that is hard to process. The data are about 3A of resolution. As we are not able to reproduce the experiment again, I have to
| use this one, collected in a dirty way.
| The problem starts immediately with finding of spots. I have tried HKL2000,
XDS, D*trek, ipmosflm, imosflm, but none of them gave a good read-out of the
| images. All the programs find some spots in wrong positions and the real
spots are not covered. Here is an example:
|
| http://kolda.webz.cz/image-predictions.jpg
|
| The data were collected in-house, Saturn 944++ CCD, and all the necessary information should be in the header properly. I checked the distance, other
| parameters, but the problem is with finding of "correct" or "real spots" on
the image. This should be even header-independent, should not? All the
| programs fail (or even crash) in this routine. Does anyone have any
suggestion, please?
|
| Btw, we have several structures in the PDB from this experimental setup. This is the first problem I have met.
|
| Many thanks for any response.
|
| Petr
|
| --
| Petr Kolenko
| petr.kole...@biochemtech.uni-halle.de
| http://kolda.webz.cz
|
|
