Hi, there are two points in Herman's post that I'd like to comment upon:
1) in case of XDS, there are two modes of reporting the completeness: one is triggered with "FRIEDEL'S_LAW=TRUE", and the other with "FRIEDEL'S_LAW=FALSE". Obviously the reported completeness will differ between these two modes, since the latter mode treats Friedel pairs as separate reflection, whereas the former doesn't. However, the XDS_ASCII.HKL file which has the reflections' intensities and standard deviations for downstream usage is almost the same (except for small differences in scaling) in both cases. This means that the actual completeness of the isomorphous signal (which implicitly does not care about whether an intensity is I+ or I-) is the same in both modes, which has the consequence that for molecular replacement and refinement calculations it does not matter which mode was used for producing XDS_ASCII.HKL . In other words, only concerning the numbers in the famous "Table 1" you have to pay attention in which mode you produce the statistics reported in CORRECT.LP/XSCALE.LP, not for calculations which make no use of the anomalous signal. 2) to lie to the program by specifying a very low REFLECTING_RANGE_E.S.D. is _not_ the best way to make XDS produce a more complete dataset! The right way is to specify a lower MINPK than the default of 75 - see http://strucbio.biologie.uni-konstanz.de/xdswiki/index.php/INTEGRATE HTH, Kay
