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  August 2019

CCP4BB August 2019

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: How to include in refinement high resolution shells with VERY low completeness ?

From:

Kay Diederichs <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Kay Diederichs <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 6 Aug 2019 07:43:54 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (167 lines)

Dear Ivan,

one thing I forgot to mention: I think the difference maps should not show model bias due to "fill-in". This is because the term D*Fcalc that is filled in as a replacement for m*Fobs is just compensated by the term D*Fc that is subtracted when forming the m*Fobs - D*Fcalc difference coefficients. 
This means that when building the model, you can let yourself be guided primarily by the difference maps. These will not suffer from model bias due to fill-in.

I like the idea of the "shaping the MTZ file" that Robbie suggests, but I still need to work out the proper sftools commands, like those at http://staraniso.globalphasing.org/test_set_flags_about.html .

best,
Kay

On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 17:44:56 -0400, Ivan Shabalin <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Dear Kay,
>
>Thanks a lot for your answers!
>
>To my best understanding, REFMAC does not have an option of for 
>restoring reflections only in certain resolution shells. But, it should 
>not be a problem for datasets with good completeness in low resolution 
>shells. Also, refinement against intensities is available only for twin 
>refinement.
>
>I will take this as a conclusion for datasets with good low resolution 
>completeness: "even if the visual effect of weak reflections on the map 
>may be low, the errors in the model coordinates will be less if the weak 
>amplitudes are used in refinement"
>
>Thanks!
>
>Ivan
>
>
>With best regards,
>Ivan Shabalin, Ph.D.
>Research Scientist,
>Department of Molecular Physiology and Biological Physics,
>University of Virginia,
>1340 Jefferson Park Avenue, Pinn Hall,Room 4223,
>Charlottesville, VA 22908
>https://www.linkedin.com/in/shabalinig/
>https://minorlab.org/person/ivan_s/
>
>On 8/3/19 04:32, Kay Diederichs wrote:
>> Dear Ivan,
>> 
>> On Thu, 1 Aug 2019 22:10:36 -0400, Ivan Shabalin <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> 
>>> Dear CCP4BB,
>>>
>>> There seems to be a general consensus for extending data to higher
>>> resolution to include as much meaningful data as possible. "Meaningful"
>>> can be defined in different ways. I heard/read opinions such as 0.5
>>> CC1/2, 0.3 CC1/2, 0.15 CC1/2,
>> 
>> This is numerology - why not 0.33333 or 0.12345?  The EM community has agreed on the "gold standard" of 0.143 for FSC which has a similar definition as CC1/2 - this value is chosen because the quantity analogous to CC* is then 0.5 !
>> 
>>> and stepped (paired) refinement. The
>>> latter seems to be one of the most rigorous options according to many
>>> crystallographers.
>>>
>>> Including more data sounds like a good thing, but, it sometimes results
>>> in low completeness in high resolution shells. As far as i understand,
>>> this may result from:
>>>
>>> a) anisotropic diffraction (if a software cuts of resolution in
>>> non-isotropic way)
>>>
>>> b) sub-optimal data collection (e.g. due to limitations of the
>>> instrument, such as minimum detector distance allowed, absence of kappa,
>>> limits on oscillation range)
>>>
>>> In the commonly referred paper, the completeness is 96% in the highest
>>> shell (Karplus, P. A., & Diederichs, K. (2012). Linking crystallographic
>>> model and data quality. Science (New York, N.Y.), 336(6084), 1030–1033.)
>>> In other words, these tests were performed for an almost complete dataset.
>>>
>>> I used to think that more data is always better, but, as I learned
>>> recently from Clemens Vonrhein, the resulting low completeness may cause
>>> model bias in the maps.
>> 
>> ... due to "fill-in" of missing reflections which is performed by Refmac and phenix.refine (https://www.phenix-online.org/documentation/faqs/refine.html#general); don't know about other programs.
>> 
>>> Indeed, REFMAC by default tries to restore missing reflections, which
>>> are approximated as DFc
>>> (https://www2.mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk/groups/murshudov/content/refmac/refmac_keywords.html).
>>>
>>>
>>> We tried using the keyword "mapcalculate free include" and "mapcalculate
>>> free exclude" for one of our structures (~1.3A, P1), and it did seem to
>>> improve the maps a little - we saw more meaningful features.
>>>
>>> But, I still have several questions:
>>>
>>> 1) Does using "mapcalculate free include" in REFMAC represent a sound
>>> solution to this problem? Does this "no fill-in at all" solution
>>> constitute a significant problem?
>> 
>> I think it would be desirable to "fill in" only the reflections missing at low resolution (e.g. in your case to 3A); that would improve the maps but decrease the model bias. Not sure if any program supports this.
>> 
>>>
>>> 2) Are there any other concerns about using data with low completeness
>>> in highest shells?
>> 
>> no.
>> 
>> To the contrary, even if the visual effect of weak reflections on the map may be low, the errors in the model coordinates will be less if the weak amplitudes (or even better, intensities - once the refinement programs use these) are used as restraints in refinement.
>> 
>>>
>>> 3) STARANISO website suggests a way of handling this problem
>>> (http://staraniso.globalphasing.org/test_set_flags_about.html). But,
>>> would not REFMAC "fill-in" all the reflections for map coefficients
>>> calculation to isotropic completeness anyway?
>>>
>>> 4) What is your personal approach to handling this issue? Is there
>>> completeness value in the last shell that is too low to include it in
>>> Table 1?
>> 
>> To me, the rule "the completeness in high-resolution shell is too low if it is less than XX %" appears not to be based on any appropriate concept. If there is good information in that resolution shell, it should be used no matter what the completeness is. Practically, this means that one has to devote a lot of attention to doing the experiment right, by choosing an appropriate crystal-detector distance. As always, attempts to computationally rectify problems that result from a poor experiment have their own caveats.
>> 
>> Thanks for bringing this up!
>> 
>> Kay
>> 
>>>
>>> Many thanks,
>>>
>>> Ivan
>>>
>>> With best regards,
>>> Ivan Shabalin, Ph.D.
>>> Research Scientist,
>>> Department of Molecular Physiology and Biological Physics,
>>> University of Virginia,
>>> 1340 Jefferson Park Avenue, Pinn Hall,Room 4223,
>>> Charlottesville, VA 22908
>>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/shabalinig/
>>> https://minorlab.org/person/ivan_s/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----
>>>
>>> ########################################################################
>>>
>>> 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

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

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

May 2024
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