I would say CC-anom > 0.3 or even 0.2 (note that the scala CC-anom is defined on I not F)
Phil
On 29 Jun 2010, at 14:37, Frank von Delft wrote:
> I've found the scala CC-anom significantly underestimates the anomalous signal, relative to e.g. xprep. I don't know why that is, but the latter seems to agree with what shelxd is happy with.
>
> Cheers
> phx
>
>
>
>
> On 29/06/2010 10:35, Graeme Winter wrote:
>> Hi Murugan,
>>
>> One useful indicator of raw anomalous signal is the ANOMPLOT graph
>> from Scala - this shows the differences between reflections compared
>> with the expected differences. If the gradient of the plot is 1
>> there's no more differences that you would expect. If the gradient is
>> more than one there is (or may be.) - also check out the merging
>> statistics as a function of batch, if there's significant radiation
>> damage this may mess things up.
>>
>> Scala writes out the gradient (assuming you told it anomalous on) in the summary
>>
>> Another rule-of-thumb is the resolution limit where cc-anom is> 0.5.
>>
>> The most practical indicator of the anomalous signal is of course the
>> success or failure of the subsequent phasing :o)
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Graeme
>>
>> On 29 June 2010 10:05, Vandu Murugan<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear all,
>>> I have collected a 2.7 angstrom home source data with Cu-Kalpha source
>>> for a protein with 6 cysteines, with a multiplicity of around 23. I need to
>>> know, is there any significant anamolous signal present in the data set,
>>> since there is no good model for my protein. Can any one tell, which
>>> program to run, and what parameter to see? Thanks in advance.
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>> Murugan
>>>
>>>
|