Hi all, Firstly, I’d like to say I’m really impressed with the volume, speed and detail of the response that I have received. Thanks everyone.
Overloads Eddie, Marc, Eleanor, Harry and Misha; thanks to all for suggesting collection strategies and identifying the likely issue. Yesterday, I had a quick look at the images and the lower-resolution reflections do look overexposed. Thanks for the offer to check the images Graeme. Weightings and anisotropic refinement Wim, Matthias and Robbie; sorry I had forgotten to mention that I ran the structure through pdbredo to optimise weights and already refined using anistropic B-factors. Resolution Tony, I have tried to be objective with choosing the resolution. Recently I have naively published some structures at a lower resolution than they are. Now, I pretty much only use CC1/2 in the highest resolution shell to determine the resolution of my dataset, i.e. 0.3<CC1/2<1 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4684713/ and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3457925/), the AIMLESS output also shows the individual CC1/2 for h, k and l. Lowering the resolution might give nicer-looking refinement statistics but they are unrealistic. My frustration is that a culture of doing this means that when someone does try to publish something at its true resolution the statics will look worse than previously published structures that claim to be at the same resolution. Petri, I think it was the limit of the detector distance so I couldn’t collect at a higher resolution :( Thanks again, Guto ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1
