> Rmeas is always higher than Rmerge, so if my Rmerg is high I don't like Rmeas either.
But that makes perfect sense now per Tim: the linear Rmerge gives for small N (lower redundancy) always lower values and rises with redundancy to approach Rmeas/rim for high redundancy. > I like the idea just to look at the I/sigI and include more data. Lucky me to suggest to use all your present data for refinement... ;-) BR Maia Tim Gruene wrote: > Hello Maia, > > Rmerge is obsolete, so the reviewers had a good point to make you > publish Rmeas instead. Rmeas should replace Rmerge in my opinion. > > The data statistics you sent show a mulltiplicity of about 20! Did you > check your data for radiation damage? That might explain why your > Rmeas is so utterly high while your I/sigI is still above 2 (You > should not cut your data but include > more!) > > What do the statistics look like if you process just about enough > frames so that you get a reasonable mulltiplicity, 3-4, say? > > Cheers, Tim > > On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 10:57:37AM -0700, Maia Cherney wrote: > >> I see, there is no consensus about my data. Some people say 2.4A, >> other say all. Well, I chose 2.3 A. My rule was to be a little bit >> below Rmerg 100%. At 2.3A Rmerg was 98.7% Actually, I have published >> my paper in JMB. Yes, reviewers did not like that and even made me >> give Rrim and Rpim etc. >> >> Maia >> >> >> >> Bernhard Rupp (Hofkristallrat a.D.) wrote: >> >>> First of all I would ask a XDS expert for that because I don't know >>> exactly what stats the XDS program reports (shame on me, ok) nor >>> what the quality of your error model is, or what you want to use the >>> data for (I guess refinement - see Eleanor's response for that, and use all data). >>> >>> There is one point I'd like to make re cutoff: If one gets greedy >>> and collects too much noise in high resolution shells (like way >>> below <I/sigI> = >>> 0.8 or so) the scaling/integration may suffer from an overabundance >>> of nonsense data, and here I believe it makes sense to select a >>> higher cutoff (like what exactly?) and reprocess the data. Maybe one >>> of our data collection specialist should comment on that. >>> >>> BR >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf >>> Of Maia Cherney >>> Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 9:13 AM >>> To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK >>> Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] I/sigmaI of >3.0 rule >>> >>> I have to resend my statistics. >>> >>> Maia Cherney wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Bernhard >>>> >>>> I am wondering where I should cut my data off. Here is the >>>> statistics from XDS processing. >>>> >>>> Maia >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 11-03-03 04:29 AM, Roberto Battistutta wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>> I got a reviewer comment that indicate the "need to refine the >>>>>> structures >>>>>> >>>>> at an appropriate resolution (I/sigmaI of>3.0), and re-submit the >>>>> revised coordinate files to the PDB for validation.". In the >>>>> manuscript I present some crystal structures determined by >>>>> molecular replacement using the same protein in a different space >>>>> group as search model. Does anyone know the origin or the >>>>> theoretical basis of this "I/sigmaI>3.0" rule for an appropriate >>>>> resolution? >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Bye, >>>>>> Roberto. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Roberto Battistutta >>>>>> Associate Professor >>>>>> Department of Chemistry >>>>>> University of Padua >>>>>> via Marzolo 1, 35131 Padova - ITALY tel. +39.049.8275265/67 fax. >>>>>> +39.049.8275239 roberto.battistu...@unipd.it >>>>>> www.chimica.unipd.it/roberto.battistutta/ >>>>>> VIMM (Venetian Institute of Molecular Medicine) via Orus 2, >>>>>> 35129 Padova - ITALY tel. +39.049.7923236 fax >>>>>> +39.049.7923250 www.vimm.it >>>>>> >>>>>> >>> > >