Hi,
I'm sure Kay will have something to say about this but I think the idea of the K & K paper was to introduce new (more objective) standards for deciding on the resolution, so I don't see why another table is needed.
Cheers,
Boaz
Boaz Shaanan, Ph.D.
Dept. of Life Sciences
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
Beer-Sheva 84105
Israel
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Phone: 972-8-647-2220 Skype: boaz.shaanan
Fax: 972-8-647-2992 or 972-8-646-1710
________________________________________
From: CCP4 bulletin board [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Douglas Theobald [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 1:05 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [ccp4bb] refining against weak data and Table I stats
Hello all,
I've followed with interest the discussions here about how we should be refining against weak data, e.g. data with I/sigI << 2 (perhaps using all bins that have a "significant" CC1/2 per Karplus and Diederichs 2012). This all makes statistical sense to me, but now I am wondering how I should report data and model stats in Table I.
Here's what I've come up with: report two Table I's. For comparability to legacy structure stats, report a "classic" Table I, where I call the resolution whatever bin I/sigI=2. Use that as my "high res" bin, with high res bin stats reported in parentheses after global stats. Then have another Table (maybe Table I* in supplementary material?) where I report stats for the whole dataset, including the weak data I used in refinement. In both tables report CC1/2 and Rmeas.
This way, I don't redefine the (mostly) conventional usage of "resolution", my Table I can be compared to precedent, I report stats for all the data and for the model against all data, and I take advantage of the information in the weak data during refinement.
Thoughts?
Douglas
^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`
Douglas L. Theobald
Assistant Professor
Department of Biochemistry
Brandeis University
Waltham, MA 02454-9110
[log in to unmask]
http://theobald.brandeis.edu/
^\
/` /^. / /\
/ / /`/ / . /`
/ / ' '
'
|