I think that anything that irrevocably modifies the experimental data
should be avoided whenever possible. Since anisotropic scaling is a
relatively fast calculation and there are several ways of doing it, it
is better to apply it locally when it is needed, e.g. in phasing (where
it is applied by phaser and shelxe etc.) and refinement (with refmac or
phenix_refine etc.). Provided that the standard deviations of the
observed intensities are properly taken into account, anisotropic data
truncation is not so important (i.e. as usual I agree with Garib and Phil).
George
On 04/25/2012 06:19 PM, Phil Evans wrote:
You can get the aimless documentation from
ftp://ftp.mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk/pub/pre/aimless.html
pending its official release through CCP4
No it does not do anisotropic scaling as such. That needs some sort of model of the
"ideal" intensity, probably best calculated from a model
I'm not sure that anisotropic cutoffs are a good idea. I believe Garib thinks
they are not and I generally defer to him
Phil
On 25 Apr 2012, at 17:00, Bryan Lepore wrote:
wondering if aimless performs anisotropic scaling or "elliptical"
rejections lately.
I ask because:
[1] last I knew, scala did not
[2] I can't seem to google up the aimless manual as readily as scala
... also, what consesquence would mosflm anisotropic resolution limits
have on scaling (if aimless anisoscaling were true).
-Bryan
--
Prof. George M. Sheldrick FRS
Dept. Structural Chemistry,
University of Goettingen,
Tammannstr. 4,
D37077 Goettingen, Germany
Tel. +49-551-39-3021 or -3068
Fax. +49-551-39-22582
