<div dir="ltr">Dear Toon,<div><br></div><div>this does't answer your question, but cutting your data at 3.6 Å is probably not the best way of continuing. Try processing with autoPROC or submit the full data to the staranio server (<a href="http://staraniso.globalphasing.com">staraniso.globalphasing.com</a>) to get a better representation of the extent of reciprocal space that your experiment covers. You will end up with more reflections for refinement etc.</div><div><br></div><div>All best.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Andreas</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 11:47 AM, Toon Van Thillo <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:toon.vanthillo@student.kuleuven.be" target="_blank">toon.vanthillo@student.kuleuven.be</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr" style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif">
<p>Hi all,<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Currently I am refining a data set which showed anisotropic diffraction. Aimless suggested cutoffs at 2.3, 2.6 and 3.6 angstrom for the h,k and l axis.<br>
</p>
<p>I chose a general 3.6 cutoff to obtain satisfactory statistics for Rmeas, I/sd(I) and CC1/2. At this resolution the data set consists of approximately 2800 reflections.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Generally 5% of the set is set aside as the Rfree test set and I found that a minimum of 500 reflections in total is used to produce a reliable Rfree. However, 5% only amounts to 140 reflections in this case. I am hesitant to include more reflections as
I would have to go up to 20% of the reflections to obtain more than 500 reflections for the test set. In a discussion on the CCP4 message boards some time ago it was suggested to do multiple refinements with different test sets:<br>
</p>
<p><a href="https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1411&L=ccp4bb&F=&S=&P=125570" target="_blank">https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/<wbr>cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1411&L=<wbr>ccp4bb&F=&S=&P=125570</a><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>In the thread it was also discussed that a least squares approach is prefered when using a small test set. However, when using a LS target, the resulting Rfree is very high (10% higher than when using the automatic option) and <em>phenix.refine</em> produces
awful geometry (24% ramachandran outliers, 105 clashcore...). It seems that the refinement is performed without restraints? Optimize X-ray/stereochemistry weight does not result in improved stereochemistry. My question is if the LS approach is still relevant
and if so, is there an explanation (and solution) for the bad statistics?<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Kind regards,<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Toon Van Thillo<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
</div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
phenixbb mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:phenixbb@phenix-online.org">phenixbb@phenix-online.org</a><br>
<a href="http://phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://phenix-online.org/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/phenixbb</a><br>
Unsubscribe: <a href="mailto:phenixbb-leave@phenix-online.org">phenixbb-leave@phenix-online.<wbr>org</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div>