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  February 2016

CCP4BB February 2016

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Reporting resolution and completeness for anisotropic data

From:

"Seijo, Jose A. Cuesta" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Seijo, Jose A. Cuesta

Date:

Fri, 19 Feb 2016 07:58:52 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (170 lines)

Dear Gerard,

A simple compromise could be to report your statistics to the resolution limit in your worst direction (so completeness and other statistics will not have started to really suffer from excluded reflections) and then in your best direction (where completeness will be abysmal), or what is the same, for the complete dataset. The resolution limits implied would be given in the legend or in a similar 2-number format in the resolution line of table1. 
There is a lot of information missing from a complete tensor, but most of what most people would ever need to know (what are the effective resolution and quality of the data?) is already captured there. The big advantage is that people are already used to reporting two numbers in each cell of table 1, one for the full dataset and one for the high resolution shell. This would be no different, it would just use different resolution cutoffs.

Just my 2 cents.

Best,

Jose.

================================
Jose Antonio Cuesta-Seijo, Ph.D.
Carlsberg Research Laboratory
Gamle Carlsberg Vej 10
DK-1799 Copenhagen V
Denmark

Tlf +45 3327 5332
Email [log in to unmask]
================================ 


-----Original Message-----
From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Gerard Bricogne
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 8:30 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Reporting resolution and completeness for anisotropic data

Dear all,

     I had a very interesting reply (off-list) from Oliver Clarke at Columbia University who directed me to a recent paper

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6273/608.full-text.pdf+html

in which Table I was extended with extra rows to give some details about the resolution limits in different directions according to two criteria. It is good that this was accepted by the reviewers and the journal as useful information. This extension, however, was designed by the authors rather than formatted according to a standard. It is also a relatively simple case, as the crystal is orthorhomic, so that the principal directions are the cell axes themselves and do not have to be specified by strange fractional components along those axes as would be the case with a monoclinic or triclinic cell.

     I was not referring to standards out of a love for committees and guidelines, but if this information is presented in different ways by different authors in different journals, it will be very difficult to harvest it and include it in the corresponding PDB entries. In the case of this paper, the PDB files for the two structures that have anisotropic data contain no trace of the careful description of that anisotropy given in the paper.

     Beyond the question of Table I (which seems to be more elastic than I was aware of) lies the more far-reaching one of coming up with appropriate descriptors of anisotropy and completeness and making them into standard items of information in results of data processing and in PDB depositions.


     With best wishes,
     
          Gerard.

--
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 06:21:42PM +0000, Gerard Bricogne wrote:
> Dear Colleagues,
> 
>      Since the announcement of the STARANISO server in the message 
> included below, numerous groups have submitted datasets for anisotropy 
> characterisation and optional correction, and sent us feedback. A few 
> cases are illustrated on the "Gallery" at
> 
>      http://staraniso.globalphasing.org/staraniso_gallery.html
> 
> and more will be posted.
> 
>      One of these users, who saw substantial improvements in his maps, 
> has asked us the natural question: what should I put in Table I of my 
> manuscript concerning the resolution and the completeness of my data 
> after treatment with STARANISO?
> 
>      As usual, anisotropy needs several numbers to describe it rather 
> than just one, and the problem is that Table I has only one cell for 
> resolution. Besides requiring up to three distinct numbers for the 
> resolution limits in several "principal" directions, it is necessary 
> to specify these directions themselves. At first sight one might think 
> that these will be the reciprocal cell axes, but as shown by the third 
> example in the Gallery, this may not be the case in low-symmetry space 
> groups.
> 
>      There is "prior art" in this area, for instance in the AIMLESS 
> program that reports resolution limits in general reciprocal-space 
> directions if necessary, and we have checked that these agree with 
> those produced by STARANISO. The main point is: how can one fit all 
> this information into Table I without revisiting its format? And, by a 
> knock-on effect, whatever goes into Table I should end up in the PDB 
> entry for the published structure: how, then, should room be made so 
> that resolution can be upgraded from a scalar to at least a 2nd-order 
> tensor?
> 
>      A related question is that of coming up with a meaningful 
> definition of completeness in the presence of anisotropy. A certain 
> notion of incompleteness still needs to be associated with that of 
> missing regions (e.g. angular wedges) of reciprocal space, simply 
> because they were not collected, and therefore to the idea of being 
> able to increase it through a better executed experiment (e.g taking 
> the trouble to "fill the cusp"). When anisotropy is present, one is 
> forced by the current conventions to declare completeness of the set 
> of unique reflections for which significant intensities are available 
> (rather than just "indices", to quote a famous witticism by Keith
> Wilson) by reference to the resolution limit in the best direction(s).
> This can result in alarmingly low values, even though everything worth 
> measuring has been measured.
> 
>      Shouldn't there be a way in which a dataset containing all 
> significant data measurable on a crystal with anisotropic diffraction 
> limits would be credited as having 100% completeness, as there is no 
> way of measuring more? With the present definitions it is impossible 
> to tell whether one is missing indices for which intensities would 
> have no information content anyway (because of anisotropy) or indices 
> for which significant intensities would have been expected but didn't 
> get measured (because of a sub-optimal strategy or by lack of care).
> 
>      At least two different numbers would therefore seem to be needed:
> 
>      (1) completeness with respect to the resolution limit in the best 
> direction(s), so that a "data miner" doesn't get misled as to the 
> accuracy of the coordinates;
> 
>      (2) completeness with respect to e.g. an ellipsoid-like region to 
> which anisotropy restricts measurable reflections, so that credit is 
> given to the experimentalist for having done his/her best, given the 
> circumstances.
> 
> 
>      Many of you will have thoughts on this: we look forward to 
> hearing them!
> 
> 
>      With best wishes,
>      
>      Gerard, Ian & the Global Phasing developers.
> 
> --
> On Thu, Jan 07, 2016 at 10:56:04AM +0000, Gerard Bricogne wrote:
> > Dear Colleagues,
> > 
> >      We have been working for quite some time on new software 
> > (called
> > STARANISO) to analyse the anisotropy of X-ray diffraction intensity 
> > data and investigate the appropriateness of various remedial 
> > measures, as well as to revisit subtleties in standard processing 
> > steps such as TRUNCATE where the existing treatment left something 
> > to be desired in the presence of significant anisotropy.
> > 
> >      We are pleased to invite you to test-drive this program via a 
> > Web server that offers access to it, and would greatly value your 
> > feedback on it. To do this, please connect to
> > 
> >                 http://staraniso.globalphasing.org
> > 
> > and peruse the material, links and buttons presented to you there.
> > 
> >      As it is the whole capability (including its user 
> > documentation) that is being submitted to your scrutiny, we will say 
> > no more, as any obscurity experienced by a first-time would-be user 
> > is part of what we are counting on you to report to us :-) .
> > 
> >      Thank you in advance for your time and attention in evaluating 
> > this server and the usefulness of what STARANISO produces for you. 
> > We very much look forward to your feedback and suggestions.
> > 
> > 
> >      While this request can be found at the bottom of the main 
> > server Web page, we expressly ask here again that you send your 
> > feedback to
> > 
> >                     [log in to unmask]
> > 
> > and not to individual developers that you might know. Thank you!
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >      Wishing you a Happy and more isotropic New Year,
> > 
> >        Ian Tickle & the Global Phasing developers.

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