Sorry for jumping into the post, but I would like the community’s opinion about
completeness, once this topic was raised here. What could be considered
reasonable? Recently I have seen a 65% completeness Crystal structure and,
surprisingly, the electron density map was not that bad for a > 3.2 A
Hi Rafael,
I guess that you ask for a number to be used as a "cutoff", but there is no
such number. Completeness is measured on a continuous scale, typically from 0
to 100%. Higher is better, of course. Resolution shells with low completeness
just carry proportionally less information about the
Fcalc maps look fantastic. Are you sure they were not using an Fcalc for the
missing 35% of the data?
Ben
On 29 Feb 2024, at 21:33, Rafael Marques wrote:
Sorry for jumping into the post, but I would like the community’s opinion about
completeness, once this topic was raised here. W
That is extremely likely! - certainly REFMAC will do that..
If 5% missing using DFcalc is a good thing - if 35% is missing not wise..
Eleanor
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 at 07:53, Ben Bax wrote:
>
> Fcalc maps look fantastic. Are you sure they were not using an Fcalc for
> the missing 35% of the data?
>
