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  June 2010

CCP4BB June 2010

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Scaling question

From:

harry powell <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

harry powell <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 9 Jun 2010 10:39:47 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (128 lines)

Hi

I'd be somewhat surprised if this accounted for the difference since  
it would require the routine collection of many overloads in each  
dataset before you'd notice that the completion was higher  
systematically.

(The two different cutoffs that James refers to are the absolute  
cutoff (where reflections aren't integrated) and the profile-fitting  
cutoff (which is used if you want to profile fit overloads).)

Since we've had automatic detector recognition since 2002, and have  
deprecated the use of the DETECTOR (or SCANNER) keyword unless you  
have an unusual set-up since then, most people should never come  
across this as a problem even if they write their own scripts. James  
does make a good point though - if you use the "DETECTOR TYPE"  
keywords, you also need to provide other keywords to make sure the  
processing proceeds according to expectations!

I think you'd need more information on where the "extra" reflections  
are, or if they are strong/weak/etc as Phil suggested, before  
pointing the finger in any particular direction.

I replied to Simon yesterday privately with the following -

>
> I seem to remember something like this when we started looking at  
> Pilatus images a few years ago, but I didn't do the processing  
> myself so can't be sure about it.
>
> In principle, if the rejection and acceptance criteria are the  
> same, then the two programs (and d*Trek and HKL...) should report  
> the same completeness and the same overall stats, once you take  
> into account the different ways the various merging Rs are  
> calculated. I'm always pleased when people give Mosflm a good  
> report, but I don't think there's a huge difference in the data  
> coming out of the different programs. Occasionally, we do find a  
> dataset where one program is better than the others (I put this  
> down to the particular dataset being similar to one that the  
> developer used).
>
> However, from memory I think XDS has rather stricter rejection  
> criteria by default - and this gives lower completeness,  
> multiplicity and merging Rs (if you merge fewer "bad" equivalents  
> you get lower R factors). When we ran tests using Mosflm to reject  
> similarly "bad" reflections from a high quality dataset, we got  
> similar completeness and merging Rs - but this is entirely artificial.
>
> I *think* it comes down to whichever program you're most used to  
> running, and the one you know how to get the best out of. I'm sure  
> that you will get replies from people saying that XDS (or whatever  
> program) always gives higher completeness etc than Mosflm!
>


On 9 Jun 2010, at 07:57, James Holton wrote:

> Check your mosflm input file.
> If this is an "ADSC" type detector and you have specified that it  
> is (using "DETECTOR TYPE ADSC" or "SCANNER TYPE ADSC"), but have  
> not explicitly specified the overload limit with "OVERLOAD CUTOFF",  
> then the default overload cutoff for integration will be 100,000,  
> and this effectively turns off overload detection.  Note that there  
> are TWO different overload cutoffs in mosflm, but both are listed  
> in the log next to the string "(CUTOFF)".
>
> I only discovered this myself a few weeks ago, and I have patched  
> the current Elves release:
> http://bl831.als.lbl.gov/~jamesh/elves/download.html
> to avoid this problem when they run mosflm, but versions from the  
> last two years may actually miss overloads!
>
> -James Holton
> MAD Scientist
>
> Simon Kolstoe wrote:
>> Thanks Tim, Phil and Andrew for your answers.
>>
>> Just one further related question:
>>
>> Why is it that mosflm seems to report higher completeness than XDS  
>> on the same data (I've seen this on about 50 datasets)? I always  
>> thought it was due to mosflms peak extrapolation but it seems this  
>> isn't the answer if SCALA throws those reflections out.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Simon
>>
>> On 7 Jun 2010, at 15:35, Phil Evans wrote:
>>
>>> Mosflm integrates them (profile-fitted overloads) but flags them.  
>>> Pointless uses them for systematic absence tests. Scala by  
>>> default ignores them, but you can include them if you want: this  
>>> is not normally recommended since they are pretty inaccurate  
>>> (look in the "Excluded data" tab of ccp4i/Scala)
>>>
>>> If you are merging strong & weak datasets it should do the right  
>>> thing, I think.
>>>
>>> Phil
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7 Jun 2010, at 15:09, Simon Kolstoe wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear CCP4bb,
>>>>
>>>> I was wondering if someone could tell me how mosflm and scala  
>>>> deal with overloaded reflections. From my understanding mosflm  
>>>> extrapolates the overloaded peaks but then scala throws them out  
>>>> completely - is this right?
>>>>
>>>> If so am I right to not worry about "contamination" from  
>>>> extrapolated peaks when combining high and low resolution  
>>>> datasets from the same crystal?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> Simon

Harry
--
Dr Harry Powell,
MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology,
Hills Road,
Cambridge,
CB2 0QH

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

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