1,330
edits
Intensity statistics: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
(New page: please link this text to Centric and acentric reflections which already has formulas and plots. Or (better) move some of that stuff here.) |
No edit summary |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Intensity statistics of twinned vs non-twinned vs pseudo-translation datasets == | |||
=== Question on CCP4BB (slightly edited): === | |||
The data I am working on has a strong translation vector (this can be found out e.g. using [http://www.ccp4.ac.uk/dist/html/sfcheck.html sfcheck]). | |||
On the cumulative intensity distribution plot, the theoretical and observed curves do not overlap. I did "detect_twinning" from CNS, and there is the | |||
result: | |||
<|I|^2>/(<|I|>)2 = 3.2236 (2.0 for untwinned, 1.5 for twinned) | |||
(<|F|>)2/<|F|^2> = 0.6937 (0.785 for untwinned, 0.865 for twinned) | |||
What does this mean? | |||
=== Answer (slightly edited): === | |||
A normal data set has a unimodal intensity distribution with a predictable shape (for formulas and plots, see [[Centric and acentric reflections]]). When there is [[twinning]] the distribution remains unimodal but becomes sharper and this is picked up in the twinning analysis. When there is [[pseudo-translation|pseudo-translational]] symmetry, as you indicate you have, then the intensity distribution becomes bimodal with one set of reflections systematically strengthened and another systematically weakened. This makes the whole distribution broader, just the opposite of what twinning does, and therefore shows up as "negative twinning" in the analysis. | |||
== Mean intensity as a function of resolution == | |||
Please see [[Wilson plot]]. | |||