[phenixbb] refinement with anomalous data

[Pavel Afonine]

If data set isn't anomalous then I don't see why you would want to 
refine against I+/I-.
Pavel

On 2/6/15 11:26 AM, Guangyu Zhu wrote:
> What I meant is: I actually don’t have anomalous signal, so when I use 
> I+/I-, kind of like I use Imean twice for each reflection. Can I do 
> that?  My guess is that the resolution is low, so double 
> reflection/parameter ratio really benefits the refinement, although 
> overall the weight for x-ray term is not change, because rms bond and 
> angle are similar.
>
> Newer versions are better for my other refinement with higher 
> resolution, but not this data set.
>
> Guangyu
>
> From: Pavel Afonine <pafonine at lbl.gov <mailto:pafonine at lbl.gov>>
> Date: Friday, February 6, 2015 at 2:12 PM
> To: Guangyu Zhu <gzhu at hwi.buffalo.edu <mailto:gzhu at hwi.buffalo.edu>>, 
> "phenixbb at phenix-online.org <mailto:phenixbb at phenix-online.org>" 
> <phenixbb at phenix-online.org <mailto:phenixbb at phenix-online.org>>
> Subject: Re: [phenixbb] refinement with anomalous data
>
>
>> I use same data set for refinement, so Rfree is also marked for same 
>> reflection. The only difference is that I chose “Data labels” from 
>> Phenix IMEAN or I(+) I(-).
>
> What I meant is that the IMEAN set is not the same as I(+),I(-) at 
> least because the number of reflections in IMEAN is not the same as in 
> I(+),I(-).
>
>> By the way, I use version 1.8.2 for refinement. Newer versions gives 
>> higher R/Rfree.
>
> Should be the other way around...
>
> Pavel
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://phenix-online.org/pipermail/phenixbb/attachments/20150206/ac429954/attachment.htm>