Hi Fellows,
because confusion is becoming a popular search term on the bb, let me admit
to one more:
What is the proper class name for the 65 space groups (you know, those):
Are
(a)these 65 SGs the chiral SGs and the 22 in the 11 enantiomorphic pairs
the enantiomorphic SGs?
Or
(b)
On Saturday, 19 April 2014 02:52:38 PM Zbyszek Otwinowski wrote:
> Why not improve "effective resolution" to include consideration of solvent
> content? Due to constant packing density of proteins, it would become a
> synonim (by appropriate transformation) to number of observations per
> modelled
Why not improve "effective resolution" to include consideration of solvent
content? Due to constant packing density of proteins, it would become a
synonim (by appropriate transformation) to number of observations per
modelled atom.
Zbyszek Otwinowski
> Dear Dale, dear Kay,
>
> last year, we disc
Hello,
I read your paper and it seems very relevant to the present discussion (and
> future referee comments). Have the criteria that you propose for
> determining the effective resolution been implemented in any program or
> crystallographic suite in way that we can read in a data set and get out
There are three places in a pdb file where resolution is defined.
Unfortunately by current conventions I believe they are all required
to show the same value. If one of them could be redefined to be
"effective resolution", with a comment to explain how that was
arrived at, it would take the pressu
Dear Alexandre,
I read your paper and it seems very relevant to the present discussion (and
future referee comments). Have the criteria that you propose for determining
the effective resolution been implemented in any program or crystallographic
suite in way that we can read in a data set and g
I thought... we had a definition for reportable resolution: The resolution at
which = 2, and completeness > 50%
This reported resolution is not to be confused with data cutoff. We give the
software all the scaled and merged data and let it down-weight the weak data.
At the edge, we might h
Dear Dale, dear Kay,
last year, we discussed this kind of problems (Urzhumtseva et al., 2013, Acta
Cryst., D69, 1921-1934).
Our approach does not tell you where to cut your data and which reflections to
accept / reject but as soon as you have your set of reflections, you calculate
very formally
As has been alluded to, people (and not just crystallographers) are looking for
a simple number to indicate the quality of a structure.
Unfortunately this doesn't exist, but it doesn't keep people from wanting such
a number.
Most crystallographers (I think) now agree that throwing data away is
