1,330
edits
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Question on CCP4BB (slightly edited): | == 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. | 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 | 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: | result: | ||
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
What does this mean? | What does this mean? | ||
Answer (slightly edited): | === 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]]. |