JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for CCP4BB Archives


CCP4BB Archives

CCP4BB Archives


CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CCP4BB Home

CCP4BB Home

CCP4BB  February 2009

CCP4BB February 2009

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: CCP4BB Digest - 12 Feb 2009 to 13 Feb 2009 (#2009-45)

From:

Clemens Vonrhein <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Clemens Vonrhein <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 16 Feb 2009 09:07:38 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (143 lines)

Dear Ho,

On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 04:45:29PM -0800, Ho-Leung Ng wrote:
>      Can you elaborate on the effects of improper inclusion of low
> resolution (bogus?) reflections? Other than rejecting spots from
> obvious artifacts, it bothers me to discard data. But I can also see
> how a few inaccurate, very high intensity spots can throw off scaling.

I completely agree: it also "bothers me to discard data". However, the
crucial word here is 'data' - which is different from Miller indices
HKL.

So I am mainly concerned with two types of reflections (HKL) that
aren't really 'data':

  1) overloads

     These are obviously not included into your final reflection file
     (unless you explicitely tell the integration software to do that
     - in which case you know exactly what you are doing anyway). So
     there is no problem ... or is there?

     Overloaded reflections are only very few at low resolution - and
     the most important reflections are obviously the ones at 1.94A
     resolution so that one can have a 'better-than-2A' structure in
     the end ... ;-) ... So still no problem, right?

     And who cares if the completelness of the data isn't 100% but
     rather 99.4%? Exactly ... so where is the problem?

     But: these few missing reflections are systematically the
     strongest ones at low(ish) resolution, and any systematically
     missing data is not a good thing to have.

     Solution: always collect a low-intensity pass to measure those
     strong reflections if there is a substantial amount of overloads.

  2) beamstop

     The integration software will predict all reflections based on
     your parameters (apart from the 000 reflection): it doesn't care
     if such a reflection would be behind the beamstop shadow or
     not. However, a reflection behind the beamstop will obviously not
     actually be there - and the integrated intensity (probably a very
     low value) will be wrong.

     One example of such effects in the context of experimental
     phasing is bogus anomalous differences. Imagine that your
     beamstop is not exactly centred around the direct beam. You will
     have it extending a little bit more to one side (giving you
     maybe 20A low resolution) than to the other side (maybe 30A
     resolution). In one orientation of the crystal you might be able
     to collect a 25A (h,k,l) reflection very well (because it is on
     the side where the beamstop only starts at 30A) - but the
     (-h,-k,-l) relfection is collected in an orientation where it is
     on the 20A-side of the beamstop, i.e. it is predicted within the
     beamstop shadow.

     Effect: you have a valid I+ measurement but a more-or-less zero
     I- measurement, giving you a huge anomalous difference that
     shouldn't really be there.

     Now if you measured your data in different orientations (kappa
     goniostat) with high enough multiplicity, this one bogus
     measurement will probably be thrown out during
     scaling/merging. You can e.g. check the so-called ROGUES file
     produced by SCALA. But if you have the usual multiplicity of only
     3-4 the scaling/merging process might not detect this as an
     outlier correctly and it ends up in your data. Sure, programs
     like autoSHARP will check for these outliers and try to reject
     them - but this is only a hack/fix for the fundamental problem:
     telling the integration program what the good area of the
     detector is.

     Solution: mask your beamstop. All integration programs have tools
     for doing that (some are better than others). I haven't seen
     any program being able to do it automatically in a reliable way
     (if reliable would mean: correctly in at least 50% of cases) -
     but I'm no expert in all of them by a long shot. it usually takes
     me only about a minute or two for masking the beamstop by hand. A
     small investment for a big return (good data) ;-)

There are other possibly problematic reflections at ice-rings etc:
these can also have effects seen in the maps. But the above effects
have one thing in common: they happen mainly at low-resolution. And
our models can be seen to consist of basically two real-space
components (atoms in form of a PDB file and bulk-solvent in form of a
mask) - one of which is a low-resolution object (solvent mask) and the
other a high-resolution object (atoms). They need to be combined
through some clever scaling: if there are issues with the
low-resolution reflections this scaling can go wrong - sometimes
really badly.

Hope that helps a bit.

Cheers

Clemens

> 
> 
> ho
> UC Berkeley
> 
> > Date:    Fri, 13 Feb 2009 17:14:38 +0000
> > From:    Clemens Vonrhein <[log in to unmask]>
> > Subject: Re: unstable refinement
> 
> > * resolution limits: are you suddenly including all those poorly
> >  measured or non existent reflections at the low resolution end (10A
> >  and lower) that are only present because the beamstop masking wasn't
> >  don properly during data processing/integration?
> >
> >  These bogus reflections can mess up your bulk-solvent correction and
> >  scaling with weird effects. Better check the scale factors you're
> >  getting during refinement and if they make sense.
> >
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Clemens
> >
> > ***************************************************************
> > * Clemens Vonrhein, Ph.D.     vonrhein AT GlobalPhasing DOT com
> > *
> > *  Global Phasing Ltd.
> > *  Sheraton House, Castle Park
> > *  Cambridge CB3 0AX, UK
> > *--------------------------------------------------------------
> > * BUSTER Development Group      (http://www.globalphasing.com)

-- 

***************************************************************
* Clemens Vonrhein, Ph.D.     vonrhein AT GlobalPhasing DOT com
*
*  Global Phasing Ltd.
*  Sheraton House, Castle Park 
*  Cambridge CB3 0AX, UK
*--------------------------------------------------------------
* BUSTER Development Group      (http://www.globalphasing.com)
***************************************************************

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager