Subject: | | Re: Rmerge, Rmeas, I/sigma, Mn(I/sd) |
From: | | Bernhard Rupp <[log in to unmask]> |
Reply-To: | | [log in to unmask][log in to unmask], 11 Apr 2014 10:46:37 -0400415_ISO-8859-1 On 04/07/2014 03:16 PM, Eugene Valkov wrote:
Thanks for the input, Eugene. No, these do not impact phasing or refinement significantly. We've SAD phased data like these with 5-Br and 5-I dU with no problems. The refinement is a bit tricky for some of the structures because they are lower resolution and the space group is pretty small, but that isn't related to the streakiness. [...][log in to unmask] |
Date: | | Fri, 18 Apr 2014 12:33:30 +0200 |
Content-Type: | | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
|
|
>[There is] a distinction between indicators of the precision of merged data, and those for the precision of unmerged data.
Let's take a step back - definitions matter:
(i) We have multiple observations of the same, already integrated h: the 'unmerged' data <- most important data set which SHOULD BE deposited and rarely is.
(ii) Now we weighted average those multiple instances of the same h, sans symmetry: 'merged' data <- still useful to keep, particularly if one gets the metric symmetry/PG wrong
(iii) Now we merge symmetry related data (generally keeping Friedels apart): 'unique' data
(iv) both (ii) and (iii) are instances of 'merged' data.
Is that correct? If so, let’s continue the thread (there is more to come...) or adjust the definitions.
Best, BR
|
|
|
|