| Quick navigation: | Home | Site Map || References | Biography || Copyright | Other copyright | Contact us | | |
|
Re: [ccp4bb] just how bad can phases be and still help |
|
CCP4bb navigationCCP4bb <-- 2007 <-- September 2007 <-- 08 September 2007Subject: Re: just how bad can phases be and still help From: Victor Lamzin victor {- at -} EMBL-HAMBURG {- dot -} DE Date: 2007-09-08 > > > Perhaps the best way to settle this is to put it out to a challenge: > does anybody have a map calculated with an average > FOM(fromsomeprogram) < 0.5 that they were able to trace? I saw ARP/wARP iteratively tracing such densities if the resolution was 1.5 A or higher - a bit subjective answer, I suspect. If the resolution is 1.0 A or higher then ab-initio or semi-ab-initio programs (e.g. ACORN) can recover a structure from a value of FOM close to zero - again, only iteratively. > Does anyone have a map calculated with FOM(fromsomeprogram) > 0.5 that > was total garbage? Yes, a lot. Two simple examples are: Type 1: lack of strong low angle reflections (e.g. due to overloads). Even for a FOM value approaching 1.0 the map would hardly be interpretable. More general case is the data having bad Wilson plot. Type 2: pathological cases with 60 degrees phase error (FOM 0.5) to each of the two enantiomorphs, left and right-hand MIR solutions, similar SAD cases (60 degrees to the correct phases and 60 degrees to those for the 'babinet-sign-inverted' map). Victor CCP4bb navigationCCP4bb <-- 2007 <-- September 2007 <-- 08 September 2007 |
| ProteinCrystallography.org: Copyright 2006-2008 by Quid United Ltd |