[phenixbb] Picking Rfree in thin resolution shells using command line
andrew at mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk
Tue Jan 31 01:21:32 PST 2012
Phil Evans kindly pointed out that I did send my message to the
bulletin board after all (I just hit reply and as the Email was from
Randy I assumed that it would simply go back to Randy !).
So, as I suggested in that Email, my memory of the details is a bit
hazy, so please do not quote me on any of the numbers.
On 30 Jan 2012, at 17:06, Randy Read wrote:
> I'd be meaning to contribute to this debate, and now that I see my
> name mentioned...
> I used to be a very strong believer in selecting the cross-
> validation data in thin shells, when you have NCS. I even had a
> recollection (a case of false memory syndrome, it seems) that we did
> this for our own case of 20-fold NCS, i.e. four copies of the Shiga-
> like toxin B-subunit pentamer cocrystallized with the Gb3
> trisaccharide (Ling et al, 1998).
> As a believer in thin shells, I was trying to convince Pavel to put
> an option for this in Phenix (like the one in sftools). He said
> that he'd never seen any evidence that it was necessary or made any
> difference. So I went back to the Shiga-like toxin structure and
> started parallel refinements from the MR solution, either choosing
> the cross-validation data randomly or in thin shells. And, guess
> what, I couldn't see any significant difference in how well the
> refinement went, even though I was pretty certain before doing that
> experiment that it would make a big difference. In fact, both
> refinements went pretty well.
> So if thin shells aren't necessary even in an extreme case of NCS,
> then I suspect that they're not that useful in the more usual case
> of lower-order NCS.
> In any case, there is a problem even with the thin shells (which
> Bart Hazes pointed out even as he implemented it in sftools). The
> theory suggests that reflections within some distance in reciprocal
> space of some reflection or a point related to it by an NCS rotation
> should be correlated to the original reflection. All the points
> related by rotation will fall into the same resolution shell but,
> since the reciprocal-space distance is related to the inverse of the
> diameter of the molecule, the shell would have to have some
> thickness, and the reflections at the edge of the shell would still
> be correlated to reflections not in the shell. So even thin-shell
> cross-validation doesn't get around all the theoretical problems.
> I'd be interested if someone has an example where it really does
> make a difference, but in the meantime it's hard to argue with
> Pavel's point of view!
> On 30 Jan 2012, at 15:26, Nathaniel Echols wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 3:43 AM, Simon Kolstoe
>> <s.kolstoe at ucl.ac.uk> wrote:
>>> I see from a quick google that it is possible to pick my Rfree's
>>> using thin resolution shells (coz I've got 20 fold NCS), however
>>> as I am someone who tries to avoid the GUI where at all possible,
>> Why? Some things are simply easier to do in the GUI, or at least
>> obvious - otherwise we wouldn't bother writing one.
>>> could someone let me know what the command line way of doing this
>> In phenix.refine, you probably want something like this (some
>> parameters optional, but the defaults are probably not what most
>> people expect):
>> Randy and Paul claim that this doesn't help very much with the NCS
>> issue, however.
>> phenixbb mailing list
>> phenixbb at phenix-online.org
> Randy J. Read
> Department of Haematology, University of Cambridge
> Cambridge Institute for Medical Research Tel: + 44 1223 336500
> Wellcome Trust/MRC Building Fax: + 44 1223 336827
> Hills Road E-mail: rjr27 at cam.ac.uk
> Cambridge CB2 0XY, U.K. www-
> phenixbb mailing list
> phenixbb at phenix-online.org
More information about the phenixbb