 |
 |
Jan, tell your reviewer to join us all in the 21st century. Diederichs and Karplus, Science, about 2 decades ago. (Technically, 2012 <https://science.sciencemag.org/content/336/6084/1030?sid=8becd183-203a-4c7b-8c8d-815e18e15887>, but it really is a long long time ago now.) On 16/04/2019 18:06, Tim Gruene wrote: > Dear Jan, > > You statistics look quite solid. > > R-factors are not good criteria to judge the resolution cut-off. The weighting > schemes in refinement programs have much improved since the late 1990s. A good > starting point to learn more is > Rupp's "Against Method: Table 1 -Cui Bono?", https://doi.org/10.1016/j.str. > 2018.04.013 > > Best regards, > Tim > > On Tuesday, April 16, 2019 6:57:06 PM CEST Jan van Agthoven wrote: >> Hi everyone, >> I’m trying to publish two structures at 3.1Å resolution with the following >> refinement statistics: >> >> Resolution range (Å) 49.2-3.1 >> 49.3-3.1 Rfactor (%) >> 24.0 (32.4) 23.4 (32.0) Rfree (%) >> 26.6 (29.2) >> 26.3 (31.6) >> >> Data collection >> Completeness 100 (100) >> 100 (100) >> >> Redundancy 6.9 (7.0) >> 6.2 (6.3) >> >> Molecules in asymmetric unit 1 >> 1 >> >> Average I/σ 14.1 (1.7) >> 15.3 (2.0) >> >> Rmerge (%) 14.9 (100) >> 12.7 (100) >> >> Rmeas (%) 16.2 (100) >> 13.9 (100) >> >> Rsym (%) 6.2 (68.6) >> 5.5 (57.1) Wilson B-factor >> 65.6 62.7 >> >> I’ve been told that the Rfree factor in the last shell are too high. Does >> anyone know how I can improve these Rfree factors other then cutting the >> resolution, which already is rather low? >> ######################################################################## >> >> 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