>there are even more harsh referees comments on gel appearance and quality
than comments on cutting data based on R,RF and sigmaI :-) Especially when
one is trying to penetrate into prestigious journals...
Ok I repent. For improving gels there is the same excellent program, also
useful for density modification - Photoshop ;-)
Best, BR
Dr Felix Frolow
Professor of Structural Biology and Biotechnology Department of Molecular
Microbiology and Biotechnology Tel Aviv University 69978, Israel
Acta Crystallographica F, co-editor
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
Tel: ++972-3640-8723
Fax: ++972-3640-9407
Cellular: 0547 459 608
On Mar 3, 2011, at 18:38 , Bernhard Rupp (Hofkristallrat a.D.) wrote:
>> related to what I feel is recent revival of the significance of the
>> R-values
>
> ....because it's so handy to have one single number to judge a highly
complex nonlinear multivariate barely determined regularized problem! Just
as easy as running a gel!
>
> Best BR
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Ed Pozharski
> Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 8:19 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] I/sigmaI of >3.0 rule
>
> On Thu, 2011-03-03 at 08:08 -0700, Bart Hazes wrote:
>> I don't know what has caused this wave of high I/Sigma threshold use
>> but here are some ideas
>>
>
> It may also be related to what I feel is recent revival of the
significance of the R-values in general. Lower resolution cutoffs in this
context improve the R-values, which is (incorrectly) perceived as model
improvement.
>
> --
> "I'd jump in myself, if I weren't so good at whistling."
> Julian, King of Lemurs
|