2,684
edits
CC1/2: Difference between revisions
→why CC1/2 can be negative
(→See also: link PDF) |
|||
| Line 117: | Line 117: | ||
== why CC<sub>1/2</sub> can be negative == | == why CC<sub>1/2</sub> can be negative == | ||
If the numerator of the formula becomes negative, CC<sub>1/2</sub> is negative. This happens if the variance of the average intensities across the unique reflections of a resolution shell is low, but the individual measurements of each unique reflection vary strongly. This is discussed in §4.1 of [https://cms.uni-konstanz.de/index.php?eID=tx_nawsecuredl&u=0&g=0&t=1475179096&hash=5cf64234a23a794a1894c5408384c57208d7b602&file=fileadmin/biologie/ag-strucbio/pdfs/Assman2016_JApplCryst.pdf Assmann, G., Brehm, W. and Diederichs, K. (2016) Identification of rogue datasets in serial crystallography (2016) J. Appl. Cryst. 49, 1021-1028.] | If the numerator of the formula becomes negative, CC<sub>1/2</sub> is negative. This happens if the variance of the average intensities across the unique reflections of a resolution shell is low, but the individual measurements of each unique reflection vary strongly. This is discussed in §4.1 of [https://cms.uni-konstanz.de/index.php?eID=tx_nawsecuredl&u=0&g=0&t=1475179096&hash=5cf64234a23a794a1894c5408384c57208d7b602&file=fileadmin/biologie/ag-strucbio/pdfs/Assman2016_JApplCryst.pdf Assmann, G., Brehm, W. and Diederichs, K. (2016) Identification of rogue datasets in serial crystallography (2016) J. Appl. Cryst. 49, 1021-1028.] | ||
[https://doi.org/10.1107/S1600576716005471 Assmann, G., Brehm, W. and Diederichs, K. (2016) Identification of rogue datasets in serial crystallography (2016) J. Appl. Cryst. 49, 1021-1028.] | |||
== Implementation == | == Implementation == | ||