2VB1: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search

2VB1 (view source)

Revision as of 15:13, 24 March 2020

14,445 bytes added ,  24 March 2020
m
no edit summary
mNo edit summary
 
(17 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
This reports processing of triclinic hen egg-white lysozyme data @ 0.65Å resolution (PDB id [[2VB1]]). Data (sweeps a to h, each comprising 60 to 360 frames of 72MB) were collected by Zbigniew Dauter at APS 19-ID and are available from [http://bl831.als.lbl.gov/example_data_sets/APS/19-ID/2vb1/ here]. Details of data collection, processing and refinement are [http://journals.iucr.org/d/issues/2007/12/00/be5097/index.html published].  
This reports processing of triclinic hen egg-white lysozyme data @ 0.65Å resolution (PDB id [http://www.rcsb.org/pdb/explore/explore.do?structureId=2VB1 2VB1]). Data (sweeps a to h, each comprising 60 to 360 frames of 72MB) were collected by Zbigniew Dauter at APS 19-ID and are available from [http://bl831.als.lbl.gov/example_data_sets/APS/19-ID/2vb1/ here]. Details of data collection, processing and refinement are [http://journals.iucr.org/d/issues/2007/12/00/be5097/index.html published].  


== XDS processing ==
== XDS processing ==


 
# use [[generate_XDS.INP]] to obtain a good starting point
* use [[generate_XDS.INP]] to obtain a good starting point
# edit [[XDS.INP]] and change/add the following:
* edit [[XDS.INP]] and change the following:
  ORGX=3130 ORGY=3040  ! for ADSC, header values are subject to interpretation; these values from visual inspection
  ORGX=3130 ORGY=3040  ! for ADSC, header values are subject to interpretation; better inspect the table in IDXREF.LP!
! the following is for masking the beamstop shadow in sweeps c-d
UNTRUSTED_RECTANGLE=0 3189 2960 3087 ! use XDS-viewer of ADXV to find the values
! the following is for sweeps e-h
UNTRUSTED_RECTANGLE=1 3160 3000 3070
  TRUSTED_REGION=0 1.5 ! we want the whole detector area
  TRUSTED_REGION=0 1.5 ! we want the whole detector area
  ROTATION_AXIS=-1 0 0 ! at this beamline the spindle goes backwards!
  ROTATION_AXIS=-1 0 0 ! at this beamline the spindle goes backwards!
* for faster processing on a machine with many cores, use (e.g. for 16 cores):
SILICON=34.812736 ! account for theta-dependant absorption in the CCD's phosphor. The correction is only
  MAXIMUM_NUMBER_OF_PROCESSORS=2
! significant for hi-res data; 34.812736=32*(value for silicon as printed to CORRECT.LP if SILICON= not given)
  MAXIMUM_NUMBER_OF_JOBS=8
MAXIMUM_NUMBER_OF_PROCESSORS=4 ! for fast processing on a machine with many cores (e.g. for 16 cores)
  MAXIMUM_NUMBER_OF_JOBS=6 ! "overcommit" the available cores but on the whole this produces results faster
SPACE_GROUP_NUMBER=1                  ! this is known
  UNIT_CELL_CONSTANTS=  27.07 31.25 33.76 87.98 108.00 112.11  ! from 2vb1
FRIEDEL'S_LAW=TRUE  ! we're not concerned with the anomalous signal


For all the sweeps, processing stopped with an [[Problems#IDXREF_ends_with_message|error message]] after the IDXREF step. By inspecting IDXREF.LP, one should make sure that everything works as it should, i.e. that a large percentage of reflections was actually indexed nicely:
Then, run "xds_par". It completes after about 5 minutes on a fast machine, and we may inspect (at least) IDXREF.LP and CORRECT.LP (see below), and use "XDS-viewer FRAME.cbf" to get a visual impression of the integration as it applies to the last frame.
By inspecting IDXREF.LP, one should make sure that everything works as it should, i.e. that a large percentage of reflections was actually indexed nicely, e.g.:


  ...
  ...
Line 26: Line 34:
  STANDARD DEVIATION OF SPINDLE POSITION (DEGREES)    0.12
  STANDARD DEVIATION OF SPINDLE POSITION (DEGREES)    0.12
   
   
It may be possible to adjust some parameters (for COLSPOT) so that the error message does not occur, but it is not worth the effort. So we just change
=== Optimization ===
  JOBS=XYCORR INIT COLSPOT IDXREF DEFPIX INTEGRATE CORRECT
 
to
The main target of optimization is the asymptotic (i.e. best) I/sigma (ISa) (Diederichs (2010) [http://dx.doi.org/10.1107/S0907444910014836 Acta Cryst. D 66, 733-40]) as printed out by CORRECT (and XSCALE). A higher ISa should mean better data.
  JOBS=DEFPIX INTEGRATE CORRECT
 
and run "xds_par" again. It completes after about 5 minutes on a fast machine, and we may inspect CORRECT.LP .
However: ISa also rises if more reflections are thrown out as outliers ("misfits") so it is not considered to be optimization if just WFAC1 is reduced. Please note that the default WFAC1 is 1; this should result in the rejection of about 1% of observations. If you feel that 1% is too much then just increase WFAC1, to, say, 1.5 - that should result in rejection of less than (say) 0.1%. This will slightly increase completeness, but will reduce I/sigma and ISa, and increase R-factors.
 
The following quantities may be tested for their influence on ISa:
* copying GXPARM.XDS to XPARM.XDS
* including the information from the first integration pass into XDS.INP - just do "grep _E INTEGRATE.LP|tail -2" and get e.g.
  BEAM_DIVERGENCE=  0.386  BEAM_DIVERGENCE_E.S.D.=   0.039
  REFLECTING_RANGE= 0.669  REFLECTING_RANGE_E.S.D.=  0.096
copy these two lines into XDS.INP
* prevent refinement in INTEGRATE: REFINE(INTEGRATE)= !


== Example: sweep e ==
=== [[XDS.INP]]; as generated by [[generate_XDS.INP]] ===


== timings for processing sweep "e" as a function of MAXIMUM_NUMBER_OF_PROCESSORS and MAXIMUM_NUMBER_OF_JOBS ==
generate_XDS.INP "../../APS/19-ID/2vb1/p1lyso_e.0???.img"


The following is going to be rather technical! If you are only interested in crystallography, skip this.
Then include the changes detailed above, resulting in:


Using
<pre>
MAXIMUM_NUMBER_OF_PROCESSORS=2
JOB= XYCORR INIT COLSPOT IDXREF DEFPIX INTEGRATE CORRECT
MAXIMUM_NUMBER_OF_JOBS=8
MAXIMUM_NUMBER_OF_PROCESSORS=4
we observe for the INTEGRATE step:
MAXIMUM_NUMBER_OF_JOBS=6
  total cpu time used              2063.6 sec
ORGX= 3130 ORGY= 3040  ! check these values with adxv !
total elapsed wall-clock time      296.1 sec
UNTRUSTED_RECTANGLE=1 3160 3000 3070 ! <xmin xmax ymin ymax> to mask shadow of beamstop; XDS-viewer to find out
DETECTOR_DISTANCE= 99.9954
OSCILLATION_RANGE= 0.500
X-RAY_WAVELENGTH=  0.6525486
NAME_TEMPLATE_OF_DATA_FRAMES=../../APS/19-ID/2vb1/p1lyso_e.0???.img
! REFERENCE_DATA_SET=xxx/XDS_ASCII.HKL ! e.g. to ensure consistent indexing 
DATA_RANGE=1 360
SPOT_RANGE=1 180
! BACKGROUND_RANGE=1 10 ! rather use defaults (first 5 degree of rotation)


Using
SPACE_GROUP_NUMBER=1                   ! 0 if unknown
MAXIMUM_NUMBER_OF_PROCESSORS=1
UNIT_CELL_CONSTANTS= 27.07    31.25    33.76 87.98 108.00 112.11  ! PDB 2vb1
MAXIMUM_NUMBER_OF_JOBS=16
INCLUDE_RESOLUTION_RANGE=50 0 ! after CORRECT, insert high resol limit; re-run CORRECT
the times are
  total cpu time used              2077.1 sec
  total elapsed wall-clock time      408.2 sec


Using
MAXIMUM_NUMBER_OF_PROCESSORS=4
MAXIMUM_NUMBER_OF_JOBS=4
the times are
total cpu time used              2102.8 sec
total elapsed wall-clock time      315.6 sec


Using
!FRIEDEL'S_LAW=FALSE    ! This acts only on the CORRECT step
MAXIMUM_NUMBER_OF_PROCESSORS=16 ! the default for xds_par on a 16-core machine
! If the anom signal turns out to be, or is known to be, very low or absent,
MAXIMUM_NUMBER_OF_JOBS=1 ! the default
! use FRIEDEL'S_LAW=TRUE instead (or comment out the line); re-run CORRECT
the times are
total cpu time used              2833.4 sec
total elapsed wall-clock time      566.5 sec
but please note that this actually only uses 10 processors, since the default DELPHI=5
and the OSCILLATION_RANGE is 0.5°.


Using
! remove the "!" in the following line:
MAXIMUM_NUMBER_OF_PROCESSORS=4
! STRICT_ABSORPTION_CORRECTION=TRUE
MAXIMUM_NUMBER_OF_JOBS=8
! if the anomalous signal is strong: in that case, in CORRECT.LP the three
(thus overcommitting the available cores by a factor of 2) the times are
! "CHI^2-VALUE OF FIT OF CORRECTION FACTORS" values are significantly> 1, e.g. 1.5
  total cpu time used              2263.5 sec
!
total elapsed wall-clock time      320.8 sec
! exclude (mask) untrusted areas of detector, e.g. beamstop shadow :
! UNTRUSTED_RECTANGLE= 1800 1950 2100 2150 ! x-min x-max y-min y-max ! repeat
! UNTRUSTED_ELLIPSE= 2034 2070 1850 2240 ! x-min x-max y-min y-max ! if needed
!
! parameters with changes wrt default values:
TRUSTED_REGION=0.00 1.5 ! partially use corners of detectors; 1.41421=full use
VALUE_RANGE_FOR_TRUSTED_DETECTOR_PIXELS=7000. 30000. ! often 8000 is ok
MINIMUM_ZETA=0.05        ! integrate close to the Lorentz zone; 0.15 is default
STRONG_PIXEL=6          ! COLSPOT: only use strong reflections (default is 3)
MINIMUM_NUMBER_OF_PIXELS_IN_A_SPOT=3 ! default of 6 is sometimes too high
REFINE(INTEGRATE)=CELL BEAM ORIENTATION ! AXIS DISTANCE


Using
! parameters specifically for this detector and beamline:
  MAXIMUM_NUMBER_OF_PROCESSORS=4
DETECTOR= ADSC MINIMUM_VALID_PIXEL_VALUE= 1 OVERLOAD= 65000
MAXIMUM_NUMBER_OF_JOBS=6
SENSOR_THICKNESS=0.01 SILICON=34.812736
(thus overcommitting the available cores, but less severely) the times are
NX= 6144 NY= 6144  QX= 0.051294 QY= 0.051294 ! to make CORRECT happy if frames are unavailable
total cpu time used              2367.6 sec
DIRECTION_OF_DETECTOR_X-AXIS=1 0 0
total elapsed wall-clock time      267.2 sec
DIRECTION_OF_DETECTOR_Y-AXIS=0 1 0
INCIDENT_BEAM_DIRECTION=0 0 1
ROTATION_AXIS=-1 0 0    ! at e.g. SERCAT ID-22 this needs to be -1 0 0
FRACTION_OF_POLARIZATION=0.98  ! better value is provided by beamline staff!
POLARIZATION_PLANE_NORMAL=0 1 0


Thus,
</pre>
MAXIMUM_NUMBER_OF_PROCESSORS=4
MAXIMUM_NUMBER_OF_JOBS=6
performs best for a 2-Xeon X5570 machine with 24GB of memory and a RAID1 consisting of 2 1TB SATA disks. It should be noted that the dataset has 27GB, and in 296 seconds this means 92 MB/s continuous reading. The processing time is thus limited by the disk access, not by the CPU. And no, the data are not simply read from RAM (tested by "echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches before the XDS run).


=== [[CORRECT.LP]] 1st pass ===
STANDARD DEVIATION OF SPOT    POSITION (PIXELS)    0.87
STANDARD DEVIATION OF SPINDLE POSITION (DEGREES)    0.10
CRYSTAL MOSAICITY (DEGREES)    0.126
...
    a        b          ISa
6.630E+00  1.091E-04  37.18
...
  SUBSET OF INTENSITY DATA WITH SIGNAL/NOISE >= -3.0 AS FUNCTION OF RESOLUTION
  SUBSET OF INTENSITY DATA WITH SIGNAL/NOISE >= -3.0 AS FUNCTION OF RESOLUTION
  RESOLUTION    NUMBER OF REFLECTIONS    COMPLETENESS R-FACTOR  R-FACTOR COMPARED I/SIGMA  R-meas  Rmrgd-F  Anomal  SigAno  Nano
  RESOLUTION    NUMBER OF REFLECTIONS    COMPLETENESS R-FACTOR  R-FACTOR COMPARED I/SIGMA  R-meas  Rmrgd-F  Anomal  SigAno  Nano
   LIMIT    OBSERVED  UNIQUE  POSSIBLE    OF DATA  observed  expected                                      Corr
   LIMIT    OBSERVED  UNIQUE  POSSIBLE    OF DATA  observed  expected                                      Corr
   
   
     2.91      15799   2114     2147       98.5%      2.3%      2.5%   15787   73.42     2.6%    1.1%  -15%  0.705    1969
     1.77        9195   4841     9501       51.0%      1.5%      1.5%     8708   48.74     2.1%    1.6%    0%  0.000      0
    2.06      39607    3830      3856      99.3%      2.5%      2.8%    39602  81.49    2.6%    0.9%  -11%  0.750    3794
     1.26       29991   15327     16721       91.7%      1.5%      1.6%    29328   45.26     2.1%    1.7%    0%  0.000       0
     1.68      64423    5068      5087       99.6%      3.1%      3.3%    64415   82.27    3.3%     1.0%    -3%  0.843    5018
     1.03      38643   19731     21636       91.2%      1.7%      1.7%    37824   38.67     2.5%    2.1%    0%  0.000       0
    1.45       72869    6147      6163      99.7%      3.2%      3.5%   72867  77.43    3.4%    1.0%    0%  0.833    6055
     0.89       46156   23404     25561       91.6%      2.3%      2.4%    45504   27.56     3.3%    3.4%    0%  0.000      0
     1.30      71079    6652      6657      99.9%      3.3%      3.5%    71079   70.69     3.4%    1.1%    8%  0.865    6506
     0.80       51509   26034     28868       90.2%      4.0%      4.0%    50950   17.55     5.6%    7.0%    0%  0.000      0
    1.19      74584    7287      7298      99.8%      3.2%      3.4%    74575  66.78    3.4%    1.2%    5%  0.870    7060
     0.73       55989   28253     32034       88.2%      7.0%      6.8%    55472   10.98     9.8%   13.2%    0%  0.000       0
    1.10      84893    8268      8278      99.9%       3.5%      3.7%    84865  62.98    3.6%    1.3%    5%  0.858    7983
     0.68       59733   30115     34776       86.6%      13.1%    13.0%    59236   6.08   18.6%    26.0%    0%  0.000      0
     1.03      87893    8585      8603      99.8%      4.2%      4.4%    87859   56.04    4.4%     1.5%    4%  0.828    8238
     0.63       35385   18436     37367       49.3%      25.6%    26.9%    33898   2.99   36.3%    52.1%    0%  0.000      0
    0.97       92833    9457      9465      99.9%      5.2%      5.6%    92810  48.70    5.5%    1.7%     6%  0.802    9010
     0.60        8991    4972     39725       12.5%      51.2%    56.9%     8038   1.34   72.4%   105.0%    0%  0.000      0
     0.92      83981    9911      9927      99.8%      5.7%      6.3%    83954   41.48     6.0%    2.1%    5%  0.785    9362
     total     335592 171113   246189       69.5%      2.3%      2.4%  328958  19.58     3.3%    7.4%    0%  0.000      0
    0.88      74101    9620      9621      100.0%       6.3%      7.2%    74083  35.53    6.7%    2.6%    5%  0.785    9041
     0.84       81383   11511     11518       99.9%      6.8%      7.7%    81361   30.26     7.3%    3.3%    1%  0.760  10616
     0.81       67616   10240     10247       99.9%      7.1%      7.8%    67596   25.84     7.7%    4.2%    1%  0.782    9368
NUMBER OF REFLECTIONS IN SELECTED SUBSET OF IMAGES  343716
     0.78       74077   11807     11817       99.9%      7.2%      7.3%    74049   22.26     7.8%     5.2%    1%  0.797  10697
NUMBER OF REJECTED MISFITS                            8112
    0.75      86236  13831    13839      99.9%      8.5%      8.7%    86206  18.77    9.3%    6.7%    2%  0.809  12497
NUMBER OF SYSTEMATIC ABSENT REFLECTIONS                  0
    0.73      64601  10481    10488       99.9%      10.4%    10.5%    64573  15.77    11.3%    8.2%    2%  0.810    9375
NUMBER OF ACCEPTED OBSERVATIONS                    335604
     0.71       71886   11727     11741       99.9%      12.8%    13.0%    71835  13.05    14.0%   10.6%    2%  0.800  10420
  NUMBER OF UNIQUE ACCEPTED REFLECTIONS              171119
    0.69      80233  13156    13163      99.9%      16.5%    16.9%    80130  10.32   18.1%    13.7%    1%  0.796  11661
     0.67       84259   14746     14766       99.9%      22.0%    22.5%    84056   7.61   24.1%    19.6%    3%  0.789  12468
     0.65      60775  15579     16551       94.1%      27.5%    30.3%    59893    4.49   31.7%   32.3%    1%  0.723    8936
     total     1433128 190017   191232       99.4%      3.3%      3.5% 1431595   33.18     3.5%    3.5%    2%  0.801 170074


The number of "misfits" (rejections) is higher than expected (1 %). Either one considers the anomalous signal (of the 6 sulfurs) to be significant, or one simply increases WFAC1 from its default of 1, to (say) 1.2 .


=== [[XDS.INP]]; optimized ===
Using the output of "grep _E INTEGRATE.LP|tail -2" edit XDS.INP to have
JOB= INTEGRATE CORRECT
BEAM_DIVERGENCE=  0.428  BEAM_DIVERGENCE_E.S.D.=  0.043
REFLECTING_RANGE=  0.880  REFLECTING_RANGE_E.S.D.=  0.126
...
REFINE(INTEGRATE)= !


Then "cp GXPARM.XDS XPARM.XDS", and then another round of "xds_par". Five minutes later, we get:


== Comparison of data processing: published ''vs'' XDS results ==
=== [[CORRECT.LP]] optimization pass ===
 
This looks a little bit better - less standard deviation, higher ISa, better R-factors, less misfits:
 
STANDARD DEVIATION OF SPOT    POSITION (PIXELS)    0.83
STANDARD DEVIATION OF SPINDLE POSITION (DEGREES)    0.08
CRYSTAL MOSAICITY (DEGREES)    0.096
    a        b          ISa
6.439E+00  1.076E-04  37.98
...
SUBSET OF INTENSITY DATA WITH SIGNAL/NOISE >= -3.0 AS FUNCTION OF RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION    NUMBER OF REFLECTIONS    COMPLETENESS R-FACTOR  R-FACTOR COMPARED I/SIGMA  R-meas  Rmrgd-F  Anomal  SigAno  Nano
  LIMIT    OBSERVED  UNIQUE  POSSIBLE    OF DATA  observed  expected                                      Corr
    1.77        9149    4817      9501      50.7%      1.5%      1.5%    8664  49.75    2.1%    1.5%    0%  0.000      0
    1.26      30049  15348    16723      91.8%      1.5%      1.6%    29402  46.26    2.1%    1.6%    0%  0.000      0
    1.03      38920  19863    21637      91.8%      1.7%      1.7%    38114  39.61    2.4%    2.0%    0%  0.000      0
    0.89      46381  23508    25562      92.0%      2.2%      2.3%    45746  28.39    3.1%    3.2%    0%  0.000      0
    0.80      51605  26071    28868      90.3%      3.8%      3.8%    51068  18.21    5.3%    6.5%    0%  0.000      0
    0.73      56126  28314    32041      88.4%      6.6%      6.4%    55624  11.45    9.3%    12.3%    0%  0.000      0
    0.68      59735  30093    34771      86.5%      12.6%    12.3%    59284    6.34    17.8%    24.8%    0%  0.000      0
    0.63      35754  18620    37370      49.8%      24.1%    25.5%    34268    3.11    34.1%    48.9%    0%  0.000      0
    0.60        9180    5075    39730      12.8%      48.6%    54.3%    8210    1.40    68.7%  100.5%    0%  0.000      0
    total      336899  171709    246203      69.7%      2.2%      2.3%  330380  20.14    3.2%    6.9%    0%  0.000      0
NUMBER OF REFLECTIONS IN SELECTED SUBSET OF IMAGES  344751
NUMBER OF REJECTED MISFITS                            7842
NUMBER OF SYSTEMATIC ABSENT REFLECTIONS                  0
NUMBER OF ACCEPTED OBSERVATIONS                    336909
NUMBER OF UNIQUE ACCEPTED REFLECTIONS              171714
 
=== further optimization ===
 
Another round of optimization again improves the R-factors and I/sigma at high resolution a bit, but it also increased the misfits back to 8200. At this point I decided to switch to FRIEDEL'S_LAW=FALSE, and the resulting table is:
      NOTE:      Friedel pairs are treated as different reflections.
SUBSET OF INTENSITY DATA WITH SIGNAL/NOISE >= -3.0 AS FUNCTION OF RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION    NUMBER OF REFLECTIONS    COMPLETENESS R-FACTOR  R-FACTOR COMPARED I/SIGMA  R-meas  Rmrgd-F  Anomal  SigAno  Nano
  LIMIT    OBSERVED  UNIQUE  POSSIBLE    OF DATA  observed  expected                                      Corr
    1.77        9599    9023    19002      47.5%      1.5%      1.5%    1152  36.81    2.1%    1.6%    0%  0.000      0
    1.26      31196  28239    33446      84.4%      1.4%      1.6%    5914  34.40    2.0%    1.6%    0%  0.000      0
    1.03      40125  35205    43274      81.4%      1.7%      1.7%    9840  30.09    2.4%    2.0%    0%  0.000      0
    0.89      46987  40188    51124      78.6%      2.3%      2.3%    13598  22.03    3.2%    3.4%    0%  0.000      0
    0.80      52229  43723    57738      75.7%      3.9%      3.9%    17012  14.44    5.5%    6.6%    0%  0.000      0
    0.73      56830  46674    64088      72.8%      7.1%      6.8%    20312    9.30    10.1%    13.2%    0%  0.000      0
    0.68      60488  48814    69544      70.2%      13.9%    13.5%    23348    5.26    19.6%    27.1%    0%  0.000      0
    0.63      36190  28598    74736      38.3%      28.2%    29.7%    15184    2.70    39.8%    57.3%    0%  0.000      0
    0.60        9246    7246    79466        9.1%      57.8%    62.4%    4000    1.26    81.8%  122.0%    0%  0.000      0
    total      342890  287710    492418      58.4%      2.8%      2.8%  110360  16.19    3.9%    9.9%    0%  0.000      0
NUMBER OF REFLECTIONS IN SELECTED SUBSET OF IMAGES  345355
NUMBER OF REJECTED MISFITS                            2448
NUMBER OF SYSTEMATIC ABSENT REFLECTIONS                  0
NUMBER OF ACCEPTED OBSERVATIONS                    342907
NUMBER OF UNIQUE ACCEPTED REFLECTIONS              287724
 
Indeed this brings the number of misfits to well below 1%, and it does make some sense.
 
== XSCALE results ==
 
The same strategy as shown for sweep e was used for sweeps a-d and f-h. XSCALE.INP is:
 
SPACE_GROUP_NUMBER=    1
UNIT_CELL_CONSTANTS= 27.07 31.25 33.76 87.98 108.00 112.11 !  from 2vb1 PDB entry
! cellparm for a-h gives  27.083    31.269    33.773    87.978  107.998  112.133
 
OUTPUT_FILE=lys-xds.ahkl
FRIEDEL'S_LAW=TRUE
RESOLUTION_SHELLS=2.91 2.06 1.68 1.45 1.30 1.19 1.10 1.03 0.97 0.92 0.88 0.84 0.81 0.78 0.75 0.73 0.71 0.69 0.67 0.65
INPUT_FILE=../a/XDS_ASCII.HKL
INCLUDE_RESOLUTION_RANGE=30 0.65
INPUT_FILE=../b/XDS_ASCII.HKL
INCLUDE_RESOLUTION_RANGE=30 0.65
INPUT_FILE=../c/XDS_ASCII.HKL
INCLUDE_RESOLUTION_RANGE=30 0.65
INPUT_FILE=../d/XDS_ASCII.HKL
INCLUDE_RESOLUTION_RANGE=30 0.65
INPUT_FILE=../e/XDS_ASCII.HKL
INCLUDE_RESOLUTION_RANGE=30 0.65
INPUT_FILE=../f/XDS_ASCII.HKL
INCLUDE_RESOLUTION_RANGE=30 0.65
INPUT_FILE=../g/XDS_ASCII.HKL
INCLUDE_RESOLUTION_RANGE=30 0.65
INPUT_FILE=../h/XDS_ASCII.HKL
INCLUDE_RESOLUTION_RANGE=30 0.65
 
=== XSCALE.LP tables ===
 
The error model is adjusted by XSCALE:
    a        b          ISa    ISa0  INPUT DATA SET
7.094E+00  1.294E-04  33.00  38.03 ../a/XDS_ASCII.HKL                               
7.476E+00  1.170E-04  33.81  38.95 ../b/XDS_ASCII.HKL                               
7.453E+00  1.598E-04  28.98  38.00 ../c/XDS_ASCII.HKL                               
6.539E+00  1.640E-04  30.54  39.08 ../d/XDS_ASCII.HKL                               
7.304E+00  1.342E-04  31.94  37.69 ../e/XDS_ASCII.HKL                               
8.201E+00  1.574E-04  27.83  35.58 ../f/XDS_ASCII.HKL                               
8.182E+00  1.759E-04  26.36  27.60 ../g/XDS_ASCII.HKL                               
7.717E+00  3.694E-04  18.73  21.93 ../h/XDS_ASCII.HKL                               
and there are about 1500 rejected reflections. It is reassuring to note that the error model works well; the ISa goes down toward sweep h probably because the crystal degrades. But see also the "a posterior remarks" below - sweep h is the one that is most affected by a shadow on the detector.
 
SUBSET OF INTENSITY DATA WITH SIGNAL/NOISE >= -3.0 AS FUNCTION OF RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION    NUMBER OF REFLECTIONS    COMPLETENESS R-FACTOR  R-FACTOR COMPARED I/SIGMA  R-meas  Rmrgd-F  Anomal  SigAno  Nano
  LIMIT    OBSERVED  UNIQUE  POSSIBLE    OF DATA  observed  expected                                      Corr
    2.91      16170    2112      2147      98.4%      2.2%      2.4%    16157  78.96    2.5%    1.1%  -12%  0.741    2023
    2.06      40349    3831      3856      99.4%      2.4%      2.7%    40345  84.89    2.6%    0.9%    -9%  0.764    3803
    1.68      65329    5068      5087      99.6%      3.1%      3.2%    65321  83.77    3.3%    1.0%    0%  0.847    5020
    1.45      73373    6147      6163      99.7%      3.2%      3.5%    73371  78.02    3.4%    1.0%    2%  0.842    6053
    1.30      71196    6651      6657      99.9%      3.2%      3.5%    71196  71.07    3.4%    1.1%    4%  0.857    6503
    1.19      74542    7287      7298      99.8%      3.2%      3.4%    74534  67.06    3.3%    1.2%    5%  0.854    7060
    1.10      84918    8269      8278      99.9%      3.4%      3.7%    84891  63.24    3.6%    1.3%    7%  0.853    7988
    1.03      87890    8584      8603      99.8%      4.1%      4.4%    87855  56.26    4.4%    1.5%    5%  0.818    8231
    0.97      92917    9460      9465      99.9%      5.2%      5.6%    92894  48.90    5.5%    1.7%    4%  0.795    9010
    0.92      83994    9911      9927      99.8%      5.7%      6.3%    83969  41.67    6.0%    2.0%    6%  0.787    9358
    0.88      74100    9620      9621      100.0%      6.3%      7.1%    74082  35.74    6.7%    2.5%    4%  0.772    9040
    0.84      81322  11511    11518      99.9%      6.9%      7.7%    81300  30.43    7.3%    3.3%    1%  0.760  10609
    0.81      67539  10239    10247      99.9%      7.1%      7.7%    67518  25.96    7.7%    4.2%    2%  0.779    9364
    0.78      73980  11807    11817      99.9%      7.1%      7.3%    73951  22.34    7.7%    5.3%    2%  0.799  10699
    0.75      86111  13831    13839      99.9%      8.4%      8.6%    86076  18.77    9.2%    6.8%    2%  0.809  12496
    0.73      64554  10481    10488      99.9%      10.3%    10.4%    64525  15.73    11.3%    8.2%    3%  0.815    9384
    0.71      71891  11727    11741      99.9%      12.8%    13.0%    71844  12.95    14.0%    10.6%    3%  0.810  10436
    0.69      80168  13157    13163      100.0%      16.6%    16.9%    80065  10.16    18.2%    14.1%    2%  0.799  11662
    0.67      84431  14747    14766      99.9%      22.2%    22.7%    84231    7.44    24.4%    19.7%    3%  0.798  12520
    0.65      61031  15592    16551      94.2%      27.6%    30.6%    60165    4.36    31.8%    33.1%    1%  0.723    9005
    total    1435805  190032    191232      99.4%      3.1%      3.3%  1434290  33.42    3.3%    3.1%    3%  0.801  170264
 
If two more resolution shells are added, they look like -
    0.64      23276    7411      9155      81.0%      35.0%    40.6%    22324    2.90    41.7%    47.9%    3%  0.683    3204
    0.63      18044    6488      9647      67.3%      42.2%    49.7%    16630    2.22    50.7%    60.9%    -5%  0.643    2437
So there is still useful signal beyond 0.65 A.
 
== Some ''a posteriori'' remarks ==
 
* For sweeps e-h one should use TRUSTED_REGION= 0 1.2 since that already gives 0.626 A in the corners.
 
* The first and last frames of sweeps g and h show a shadow in one corner of the detector. Nothing was done by me to exclude this shadow from processing (but one should do so at least if the resolution should be expanded beyond 0.65 A which the XSCALE statistics suggest to be possible). <br> One could experiment with MINIMUM_VALID_PIXEL_VALUE= 40 (or so) instead of 1 - I'd probably try that, but of course one does not want to exclude valid pixels so the result has to be carefully checked. <br> Anyway, there is no general facility in XDS to exclude bad areas of ''specific'' frames in a dataset; one needs to chop the dataset into parts and deal with each shadow separately.
 
== Comparison of data processing: published (2006) ''vs'' XDS results ==


<table border = "1">
<table border = "1">
Line 131: Line 315:


<tr><b>
<tr><b>
<td> published </td>
<td> published (2006) </td>
<td> 30-0.65Å (0.67-0.65Å) </td>
<td> 30-0.65Å (0.67-0.65Å) </td>
<td> 1331953 (12764) </td>
<td> 1331953 (12764) </td>
Line 142: Line 326:


<tr><b>
<tr><b>
<td> XDS </td>
<td> XDS Version Dec 06, 2010 </td>
<td> 30-0.65Å (0.67-0.65Å) </td>
<td> 30-0.65Å (0.67-0.65Å) </td>
<td> 1433128 (60775) </td>
<td> 1435805 (61031) </td>
<td> 190017 (15579) </td>
<td> 190032 (15592) </td>
<td> 7.5 (3.9) </td>
<td> 7.5 (3.9) </td>
<td> 99.4 (94.1) </td>
<td> 99.4 (94.2) </td>
<td> 3.3 (27.5) </td>
<td> 3.1 (27.6) </td>
<td> 33.2 (4.5) </td>
<td> 33.4 (4.4) </td>
</b></tr>
</b></tr>


</table>
</table>
== Availability of data from XDS processing ==
I changed XSCALE.INP to have
!FRIEDEL'S_LAW=TRUE  ! by commenting it out XSCALE will use FRIEDEL'S_LAW=FALSE
!                      since this is how the data were processed
RESOLUTION_SHELLS=2.91 2.06 1.68 1.45 1.30 1.19 1.10 1.03 0.97 0.92 0.88 0.84 0.80 0.76 0.73 0.70 0.67 0.65 0.64 0.63
and ran XSCALE again, to get a file with reflections to 0.63 A.
Conversion to other program systems is performed with XDSCONV. XDSCONV.INP for producing a MTZ file with intensities and anomalous signal is:
INPUT_FILE= lys-xds.ahkl
OUTPUT_FILE=temp.hkl CCP4_I
After running xdsconv, I cut-and-paste the screen output:
f2mtz HKLOUT temp.mtz<F2MTZ.INP
cad HKLIN1 temp.mtz HKLOUT output_file_name.mtz<<EOF
LABIN FILE 1 ALL
END
EOF
and obtain output_file_name.mtz which I mv to [https://{{SERVERNAME}}/pub/xds-datared/2vb1/xds-hewl-I.mtz xds-hewl-I.mtz]. SFCHECK statistics for this file are [https://{{SERVERNAME}}/pub/xds-datared/2vb1/sfcheck_XXXX.pdf here].
Similarly, using OUTPUT_FILE=temp.hkl CCP4 I obtained a file with amplitudes, [https://{{SERVERNAME}}/pub/xds-datared/2vb1/xds-hewl-F.mtz xds-hewl-F.mtz]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.uni-konstanz.de/xds/index.php/Special:MobileDiff/2333...4081"
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.
More information

Navigation menu