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  March 2019

CCP4BB March 2019

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: acceptable difference between Average B-factor and Wilson B

From:

DUMAS Philippe (IGBMC) <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

DUMAS Philippe (IGBMC) <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 12 Mar 2019 21:39:48 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (90 lines)

 
Le Mardi 12 Mars 2019 19:55 CET, Dale Tronrud <[log in to unmask]> a écrit: 

Dale
Good to have the opportunity of going back to the crystallography of the fifties in these post-modern times...
There is an essential argumentation that should be recalled. The only reason for the fact that one ignores low-resolution data in a Wilson plot is that a Wilson plot is based precisely upon Wilson statistics, which assumes that the atoms are cast randomly in the unit cell.
This assumption obviously does not hold at low resolution and there is no reason to obtain a straight line that stems from the latter assumption.
Therefore, I do not think one may say that a Wilson plot tends to ignore atoms with high B values.
Consequence: if one has data at rather low resolution, a Wilson plot is inherently inaccurate, but if one has data at very high resolution, the Wilson plot should give a very decent estimate of the average B and any significant discrepancy should ring the bell.
Philippe Dumas

 
>    The numeric average of the B factors of the atoms in your model only
> roughly corresponds to the calculation of the Wilson B.  While I always
> expect the average B to be larger than the Wilson B, how much larger

> depends on many factors, making it a fairly useless criteria for judging
> the correctness of a model.
> 
>    While it is pretty easy to understand the average of the B factors in
> your model, the Wilson B is more difficult.  Since it is calculated by
> drawing a line though the (Log of) the intensity of your structure
> factors as a function of the square of sin theta over lambda, it is
> rather removed from the atomic B factors.  When drawing the line the low
> resolution data are ignored because those data don't fall on a straight
> line, and this means that the large B factor atoms in your model are

> ignored in the Wilson B calculation.
> 
>    The Wilson B is (sort of) a weighted average of the B factors of your
> model, with the smallest B's given the largest weight.  The actually

> weighting factor is a little obscure so I don't know how to simulate it
> to adjust the averaging of atomic B's to come out a match.  The easiest
> way to compare your model to the Wilson B is to calculate structure
> factors from it and calculate the Calculated Wilson B.  No one does this
> because it will always come out as a match.  If your calculated Wilson B
> doesn't match the observed Wilson B your R values are guaranteed to be
> unacceptable and your refinement program will have to be malfunctioning
> to create such a model.
> 
>    If all the B factors in your model are equal to each other, your
> refined model will have an average B that matches the Wilson B, because
> weighting doesn't matter in that situation.  If you allow the B's to

> vary, the difference between the average and the Wilson B will depend on
> how high of an individual B factor you are willing to tolerate.  If you
> are a person who likes to build chain into weak loops of density, or

> build side chains where there is little to no density, then your average
> B will be much larger than the Wilson B.  This does not mean there is an
> error, it is simply a reflection of the Wilson B's insensitivity to
> atoms with large B.
> 
>    I do not believe comparing the average B to the Wilson B has any
> utility at all.
> 
> Dale Tronrud
> 
> On 3/12/2019 11:34 AM, Eze Chivi wrote:
> > Dear CCP4bb community,
> > 
> > 
> > The average B-factor (calculated from model) of my protein is 65,
> > whereas the Wilson B is 52. I have read in this BB that "it is expected
> > that average B does not deviate strongly from the Wilson B". How I can
> > evaluate if the difference calculated for my data is razonable or not?
> > 
> > 
> > Thank you in advance
> > 
> > 
> > Ezequiel
> > 
> > 
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
> > https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1
> > 
> 
> ########################################################################
> 
> To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1
 
 
 
 

########################################################################

To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1

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