Yes, that's a good point--you can't really discredit Rmerge (it's just a mathematical expression, after all, which must be translated vis a vis redundancy), but you can show that the other R's are pleasanter ways to represent the data.
Jacob On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Anastassis Perrakis <a.perra...@nki.nl> wrote: > Also > > Nat Struct Biol. 1997 Apr;4(4):269-75. > Improved R-factors for diffraction data analysis in macromolecular > crystallography. > Diederichs K, Karplus PA. > > But none of these are in any way 'discrediting' Rmerge, they are just > proposing more statistically sound alternatives. That is not the same ... > > A. > > > On 6 Dec 2011, at 21:44, Ed Pozharski wrote: > >> On Tue, 2011-12-06 at 13:43 -0600, Jacob Keller wrote: >>> The question is: "is there a reference in which Rmerge has been >>> thoroughly, clearly, and authoritatively discredited as a data >>> evaluation metric in the favor of Rmeas, Rpim, etc., and if so, what >>> is that reference?" >>> >> >> Aren't these sufficient? >> >> Manfred Weiss & Rolf Hilgenfeld, "On the use of the merging R factor as >> a quality indicator for X-ray data", J.Appl.Cryst. 30, 203-205 (1997) >> >> Manfred Weiss, "Global Indicators of X-ray data quality" J.Appl.Cryst. >> 34, 130-135 (2001) >> >> -- >> Oh, suddenly throwing a giraffe into a volcano to make water is crazy? >> Julian, King of Lemurs -- ******************************************* Jacob Pearson Keller Northwestern University Medical Scientist Training Program email: j-kell...@northwestern.edu *******************************************
