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  November 2013

CCP4BB November 2013

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: [phenixbb] Appropriate number of reflections for FreeR

From:

"Edward A. Berry" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Edward A. Berry

Date:

Sun, 3 Nov 2013 22:46:37 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (89 lines)

Agreed. I was not entirely serious but just trying to present a diametrically opposed 
viewpoint. A middle of the road approach would be to say the additional reflections could 
benefit either refinement or ML (and maybe the two are not really separate since
ML guides the refinement), and so continue to apportion them at the same rate between
free and working sets.

Mark van Raaij wrote:
> But at higher resolution you would like to release the restraints and introduce more
> parameters in refinement, such as anisotropic Bs - ideally keeping the
> observation/parameter ration more or less constant...
>
> On 3 Nov 2013, at 12:50, Edward Berry wrote:
>
>> Looking at it from the other side- suppose we say for a robust refinement we need a
>> certain number of reflections- say 4 times the number of atoms, maybe less, I don't
>> know. Any more than that is not really going to affect the structure, So if you have
>> high resolution you can afford to use a large percentage of free reflections, and the
>> cross-validation and maximum liklihood will go really well, even with thin shells. On
>> the other hand at low resolution, well, sorry, you really can't spare any reflections
>> for cross-validation. (I have no idea whether this makes sense or not, but it would be
>> another way of looking at it).
>>
>> >>> Mark van Raaij <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> 11/01/13
>> 7:39 PM >>>
>> the limit of 2000 reflections I guess is just because it would be a waste to "throw
>> away" more reflections for refinement, once the statistical minima for calculating a
>> reliable Rfree have been met. I.e. if you have 100.000 reflections, it would be a waste
>> to use 5 or 10% of the reflections instead of just 2%. I'd rather use as many as
>> possible reflections for refinement.
>>
>> On 31 Oct 2013, at 20:21, Pavel Afonine wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Joe,
>> >
>> > flags should be selected such that there is enough of them in each relatively thin
>> resolution shell (thin enough so ML target parameters can be considered constant in each
>> such shell). Lower end is about 50 reflections per shell. All in all this usually
>> translates into about 10% overall.
>> >
>> > Yes, there is a limit parameter set to 2000 by default. I don't know what's the
>> rationale for having it, may be someone can explain.
>> >
>> > Pavel
>> >
>> > On 10/31/13 12:10 PM, Joseph Noel wrote:
>> >> Hi All. I think I have asked this before but forgot. Old age. What is
>> >> the appropriate number / percentage of reflections to flag for a
>> >> statistically appropriate Free-R calculation? If I am correct, the
>> >> reflection file editor in Phenix chooses by default either 10% of the
>> >> measured reflections or 2000 whichever comes first.
>> >> ______________________________________________________________________________________
>> >> Joseph P. Noel, Ph.D.
>> >> Arthur and Julie Woodrow Chair
>> >> Investigator, Howard Hughes Medical Institute
>> >> Professor, The Jack H. Skirball Center for Chemical Biology and Proteomics
>> >> The Salk Institute for Biological Studies
>> >> 10010 North Torrey Pines Road
>> >> La Jolla, CA 92037 USA
>> >>
>> >> Phone: (858) 453-4100 extension 1442
>> >> Cell: (858) 349-4700
>> >> Fax: (858) 597-0855
>> >> E-mail: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> >>
>> >> Publications & Citations:
>> >> http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=xiL1lscAAAAJ
>> >>
>> >> Homepage Salk: http://www.salk.edu/faculty/noel.html
>> >> Homepage HHMI: http://hhmi.org/research/investigators/noel.html
>> >> ______________________________________________________________________________________
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> phenixbb mailing list
>> >> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> >> http://phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb
>> >>
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > phenixbb mailing list
>> > [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> > http://phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> phenixbb mailing list
>> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> http://phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

April 2024
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