Print

Print


On 06/14/2013 07:00 AM, John R Helliwell wrote:
> Alternatively, at poorer resolutions than that, you can monitor if the 
> Cruickshank-Blow Diffraction Precision Index (DPI) improves or not as 
> more data are steadily added to your model refinements.
Dear John,

unfortunately the behavior of DPIfree is less than satisfactory here - 
in a couple of cases I looked at it just steadily improves with 
resolution.  Example I have in front of me right now takes resolution 
down from 2.0A to 1.55A, and DPIfree goes down from ~0.17A to 0.09A at 
almost constant pace (slows down from 0.021 A/0.1A to 0.017 A/0.1A 
around 1.75A).

Notice that in this specific case I/sigI at 1.55A is ~0.4 and 
CC(1/2)~0.012 (even this non-repentant big-endian couldn't argue there 
is good signal there).

DPIfree is essentially proportional to Rfree * d^(2.5)  (this is 
assuming that No~1/d^3, Na and completeness do not change).  To keep up 
with resolution changes, Rfree would have to go up ~1.9 times, and 
obviously that is not going to happen no matter how much weak data I 
throw in.

The maximum-likelihood e.s.u. reported by Refmac makes more sense in 
this particular case as it clearly slows down big time around 1.77A (see 
https://plus.google.com/photos/113111298819619451614/albums/5889708830403779217). 
Coincidentally, Rfree also starts going up rapidly around the same 
resolution.  If anyone is curious what's I/sigI is at the "breaking 
point" it's ~1.5 and CC(1/2)~0.6.  And to bash Rmerge a little more, 
it's 112%.

So there are two questions I am very much interested in here.

a) Why is DPIfree so bad at this?  Can we even believe it given it's 
erratic behavior in this scenario?

b) I would normally set up a simple data mining project to see how 
common this ML_esu behavior is, but there is no easily accessible source 
of data processed to beyond I/sigI=2, let alone I/sigI=1 (are structural 
genomics folks reading this and do they maybe have such data to mine?).  
I can look into all of my own datasets, but that would be a biased 
selection of several crystal forms.  Perhaps others have looked into 
this too, and what are your observations? Or maybe you have a dataset 
processed way beyond I/sigI=1 and are willing to either share it with me 
together with a final model or run refinement at a bunch of different 
resolutions and report the result (I can provide bash scripts as needed).

Cheers,

Ed.

-- 
Oh, suddenly throwing a giraffe into a volcano to make water is crazy?
                                                 Julian, King of Lemurs