Quick navigation:        Home   |    Site Map   ||    References   |    Biography   ||    Copyright   |    Other copyright   |    Contact us   |   
Protein structure
 

Re: [ccp4bb] an over refined structure
 

Basic tutorials: 		 
 

CCP4bb navigation

CCP4bb <-- 2008 <-- February 2008 <-- 07 February 2008
Previous message:
Subject: Announcement: two crystallographic wikis
From: Kay Diederichs Kay {- dot -} Diederichs {- at -} UNI-KONSTANZ {- dot -} DE
Date: 2008-02-07 		Next message:
Subject: Re: extra line of stain in our gel
From: Dima Klenchin klenchin {- at -} FACSTAFF {- dot -} WISC {- dot -} EDU
Date: 2008-02-07


Subject: Re: an over refined structure
From: Doug Ohlendorf ohlen {- at -} UMN {- dot -} EDU
Date: 2008-02-07
It is important when using NCS that the Rfree reflections be selected is
distributed thin resolution shells. That way application of NCS should not
mix Rwork and Rfree sets. Normal random selection or Rfree + NCS
(especially 4x or higher) will drive Rfree down unfairly.

Doug Ohlendorf

-----Original Message-----
From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of
Eleanor Dodson
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 3:38 AM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] an over refined structure

I agree that the difference in Rwork to Rfree is quite acceptable at
your resolution. You cannot/ should not use Rfactors as a criteria for
structure correctness.
As Ian points out - choosing a different Rfree set of reflections can
change Rfree a good deal.
certain NCS operators can relate reflections exactly making it hard to
get a truly independent Free R set, and there are other reasons to make
it a blunt edged tool.

The map is the best validator - are there blobs still not fitted? (maybe
side chains you have placed wrongly..) Are there many positive or
negative peaks in the difference map? How well does the NCS match the 2
molecules?

etc etc.
Eleanor

George M. Sheldrick wrote:
> Dear Sun,
>
> If we take Ian's formula for the ratio of R(free) to R(work) from his
> paper Acta D56 (2000) 442-450 and make some reasonable approximations,
> we can reformulate it as:
>
> R(free)/R(work) = sqrt[(1+Q)/(1-Q)] with Q = 0.025pd^3(1-s)
>
> where s is the fractional solvent content, d is the resolution, p is
> the effective number of parameters refined per atom after allowing for
> the restraints applied, d^3 means d cubed and sqrt means square root.
>
> The difficult number to estimate is p. It would be 4 for an isotropic
> refinement without any restraints. I guess that p=1.5 might be an
> appropriate value for a typical protein refinement (giving an R-factor
> ratio of about 1.4 for s=0.6 and d=2.8). In that case, your R-factor
> ratio of 0.277/0.215 = 1.29 is well within the allowed range!
>
> However it should be added that this formula is almost a
> self-fulfilling prophesy. If we relax the geometric restraints we
> increase p, which then leads to a larger 'allowed' R-factor ratio!
>
> Best wishes, George
>
>
> Prof. George M. Sheldrick FRS
> Dept. Structural Chemistry,
> University of Goettingen,
> Tammannstr. 4,
> D37077 Goettingen, Germany
> Tel. +49-551-39-3021 or -3068
> Fax. +49-551-39-2582
>
>
>

CCP4bb navigation

CCP4bb <-- 2008 <-- February 2008 <-- 07 February 2008
Previous message:
Subject: Announcement: two crystallographic wikis
From: Kay Diederichs Kay {- dot -} Diederichs {- at -} UNI-KONSTANZ {- dot -} DE
Date: 2008-02-07 		Next message:
Subject: Re: extra line of stain in our gel
From: Dima Klenchin klenchin {- at -} FACSTAFF {- dot -} WISC {- dot -} EDU
Date: 2008-02-07


ProteinCrystallography.org: Copyright 2006-2008 by Quid United Ltd