2,684
edits
2QVO.xds: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→data reduction
| Line 317: | Line 317: | ||
==Can we do better?== | ==Can we do better?== | ||
===data reduction=== | ===data reduction=== | ||
The safest way to optimize the data reduction is to look at external quality indicators. Internal R-factors, and even the correlation coefficient of the anomalous signal are of comparatively little value. A readily available external quality indicator is CC All/CC Weak as obtained by [[ccp4com:SHELX_C/D/E|SHELXD]]. | The safest way to optimize the data reduction is to look at external quality indicators. Internal R-factors, and even the correlation coefficient of the anomalous signal are of comparatively little value. A readily available external quality indicator is CC All/CC Weak as obtained by [[ccp4com:SHELX_C/D/E|SHELXD]], and the percentage of successful trials. | ||
WFAC1 was already discussed above. Another candidate for optimization is MAXIMUM_ERROR_OF_SPOT_POSITION. By default this is 3.0 . In the case of these data, this default appears to be too small, because the STANDARD DEVIATION OF SPOT POSITION (PIXELS) (as reported by IDXREF, INTEGRATE and CORRECT after refinement) is quite high (1.5 and more). This prevents XDS from using all the reflections for geometry refinement. In general, it makes sense to use MAXIMUM_ERROR_OF_SPOT_POSITION= (at least 3 times the STANDARD DEVIATION OF SPOT POSITION (PIXELS)) | WFAC1 was already discussed above. Another candidate for optimization is MAXIMUM_ERROR_OF_SPOT_POSITION. By default this is 3.0 . In the case of these data, this default appears to be too small, because the STANDARD DEVIATION OF SPOT POSITION (PIXELS) (as reported by IDXREF, INTEGRATE and CORRECT after refinement) is quite high (1.5 and more). This prevents XDS from using all the reflections for geometry refinement. In general, it makes sense to use MAXIMUM_ERROR_OF_SPOT_POSITION= (at least 3 times the STANDARD DEVIATION OF SPOT POSITION (PIXELS)) | ||
| Line 323: | Line 323: | ||
I found that MAXIMUM_ERROR_OF_SPOT_POSITION=6.0 significantly improved the internal statistics (mostly the r-factors, but not so much the correlation coefficient of the anom signal), and improved CC All/CC Weak indicators (to more than 40). SHELXE then produces significantly better and more complete models. Try for yourself! | I found that MAXIMUM_ERROR_OF_SPOT_POSITION=6.0 significantly improved the internal statistics (mostly the r-factors, but not so much the correlation coefficient of the anom signal), and improved CC All/CC Weak indicators (to more than 40). SHELXE then produces significantly better and more complete models. Try for yourself! | ||
[[Optimization]] does improve things as much as it often does: recycling of GXPARM.XDS to use as XPARM.XDS, and thus imposing the lattice symmetry in the geometry refinement in INTEGRATE. These findings my correspond to the fact that in P1 the angles do not refine to 90.0xx or 89.9xx degrees. In other words, the metric symmetry is not as well fulfilled as it should be. This results in fairly large deviations from the ideal P42 positions; the refinement of cell parameters in P1 partly compensates for this. I have however no idea why this deviation from metric symmetry could occur. | [[Optimization]] does improve things as much as it often does: recycling of GXPARM.XDS to use as XPARM.XDS, and thus imposing the lattice symmetry in the geometry refinement in INTEGRATE. These findings my correspond to the fact that in P1 the angles do not refine to 90.0xx or 89.9xx degrees. In other words, the metric symmetry is not as well fulfilled as it should be. This results in fairly large deviations from the ideal P42 positions; the refinement of cell parameters in P1 partly compensates for this. I have however no idea why this deviation from metric symmetry could occur. | ||
===structure solution=== | ===structure solution=== | ||