[phenixbb] Similar 2Fo-Fc maps, very different e/A^3 levels (absolute levels)

Sam Stampfer Samuel.Stampfer at tufts.edu
Mon Dec 3 10:38:23 PST 2012


Thanks so much for the replies! The structure is being refined at 2.74 A
resolution, but I may need to raise the cutoff to 2.9 or so. The crystal
was anisotropic.

How would I go about properly normalizing the detwinning calculation, if
that were the problem?

Thanks,
-Sam

On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Dale Tronrud <det102 at uoxray.uoregon.edu>wrote:

>
>    I'm not an expert on twining, but I think you should first decide if
> your crystal is twinned, then use the map that is calculated based on
> that determination.  How the map "looks" is not a very rigorous basis
> for making a decision about anything, unless you have no bulk solvent
> regions or your helices "look" left-handed.  The fact that your free R
> does not drop when you refine assuming twining does not encourage me.
>
>    The electron density values you quote seem low to me as well
> (referring to Edward Berry's letter).  The expected rms value of a map
> will depend on resolution.  The rms of the map is directly related to
> the rms of its Fourier coefficients, so when the coefficients get
> weaker the rms of the map will drop.  I'm used to an rms of about
> 0.36 e/A^3 for a 1.5 A resolution map.  For the rms to drop to
> 0.08 e/A^3 you would have to be at quite a low resolution, but you
> have not informed us of that.
>
>    I suspect that the detwining calculation in Map #1 is not being
> correctly normalized.  If so, the map will appear identical to the
> correctly normalized map, but only after the contour level has been
> adjusted.  Since this sort of error does not affect most peoples'
> use of the map this is probably not debugged carefully.  The last
> time I checked, Coot's ncs averaged maps have very odd numbers for
> their absolute density values.  Again, since a spin of the mouse
> wheel will make the map look as expected no one seems to care enough
> to figure out the problem.
>
> Dale Tronrud
>
> On 12/03/12 09:09, Sam Stampfer wrote:
> > Dear Phenix group,
> >
> >
> >
> > I am trying to decide which electron density map to use for rebuilding
> > my structure in Coot. Both 2Fo-Fc maps appear quite similar at the 1
> > sigma level but the absolute electrons per cubic Angstrom (e/A^3) is
> > very different.
> >
> >
> >
> > When contoured at 1.00 rmsd in coot, these are the e/A^3 levels (Coot
> > calls them absolute levels):
> >
> > Map #1 2Fo-Fc: 0.0044 e/A^3
> >
> > Map #2 2Fo-Fc: 0.0832 e/A^3
> >
> >
> >
> > Map #1 was generated using a twinning operator that is typically
> > required for this crystal form. Map #2 was generated without the
> > twinning operator and it tends to have slightly better 2Fo-Fc density,
> > and there is a bit more density (or noise?) in the Fo-Fc map.
> >
> >
> >
> > The structure was refined in Phenix and gave a similar Rfree regardless
> > of whether a twinning operator was used.
> >
> >
> >
> > What does it mean to have this 20-fold difference in electrons per cubic
> > Angstroms for my maps? Which map should I use?
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks for your help!
> >
> >
> >
> > -Sam
> >
> >
> > PS: The Fo-Fc map in Map#2 also contours at a much higher absolute e/A^3
> > level.
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > phenixbb mailing list
> > phenixbb at phenix-online.org
> > http://phenix-onl
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://phenix-online.org/pipermail/phenixbb/attachments/20121203/36d35d48/attachment.htm>


More information about the phenixbb mailing list