 |
 |
> We don't currently have a really good measure of that point where adding the extra shell of data adds "significant" information > so it probably isn't something to agonise over too much. K & D's paired refinement may be useful though. That seems to be a correct assessment of the situation and a forceful argument to eliminate the review nonsense of nitpicking on <I/sigI> values, associated R-merges, and other pseudo-statistics once and for good. We can now, thanks to data deposition, at any time generate or download the maps and the models and judge for ourselves even minute details of local model quality from there. As far as use and interpretation goes, when the model meets the map is where the rubber meets the road. I therefore make the heretic statement that the entire table 1 of data collection statistics, justifiable in pre-deposition times as some means to guess structure quality can go the way of X-ray film and be almost always eliminated from papers. There is nothing really useful in Table 1, and all its data items and more are in the PDB header anyhow. Availability of maps for review and for users is the key point. Cheers, BR