1,330
edits
Data quality: Difference between revisions
m
→Improved indicators for data quality
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
* it depends on the multiplicity (unfortunately often called redundancy): the higher the multiplicity, the higher R<sub>merge</sub> becomes | * it depends on the multiplicity (unfortunately often called redundancy): the higher the multiplicity, the higher R<sub>merge</sub> becomes | ||
* it assesses data consistency, not the quality of the reduced data | * it assesses data consistency, not the quality of the reduced data | ||
This has been discussed by Diederichs and Karplus<ref name="DiKa97">K. Diederichs and P.A. Karplus (1997). Improved R-factors for diffraction data analysis in macromolecular crystallography. Nature Struct. Biol. 4, 269-275 [http://strucbio.biologie.uni-konstanz.de/strucbio/files/nsb-1997.pdf]</ref> | This has been discussed by Diederichs and Karplus<ref name="DiKa97">K. Diederichs and P.A. Karplus (1997). Improved R-factors for diffraction data analysis in macromolecular crystallography. Nature Struct. Biol. 4, 269-275 [http://strucbio.biologie.uni-konstanz.de/strucbio/files/nsb-1997.pdf]</ref>, who suggest a multiplicity-independant version called R<sub>meas</sub>, which unfortunately is not used by everyone because the formula gives higher values than R<sub>merge</sub>. R-factors for data quality assessment were also suggested by Diederichs and Karplus, and Weiss and Hilgenfeld <ref name="WeHi97">M.S. Weiss and R. Hilgenfeld (1997) On the use of the merging R-factor as a quality indicator for X-ray data. J. Appl. Crystallogr. 30, 203-205 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1107/S0021889897003907]</ref>. Weiss <ref name="We01">M.S. Weiss (2001) Global indicators of X-ray data quality. J. Appl. Cryst. 34, 130-135 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1107/S0021889800018227]</ref> showed that these R-factors are indeed strongly correlated with the quality of the data. | ||
== References == | == References == | ||
<references/> | <references/> | ||