Hi Mohamed,

this is not a simple topic.. Two texts I suggest to have a look at are listed below I'm sure there are more). They may not give you a quick solution but perhaps will explain the issues.

Acta Cryst. (2014). D70, 2593-2606
Metrics for comparison of crystallographic maps

Acta Cryst. (2015). D71, 646-666.
FEM: feature-enhanced map

In a very nutshell,

- "1 sigma (or any other x sigma) level for one map may not be the same as 1 sigma (or any other x sigma) level for another map";
- Think of "global vs local". Somehow you need to quantify map quality locally.
- Map correlation (RSCC or map CC, for alternative names) may be a misleading metric is used without care: for example, two poor but similar map may give you high CC.

All the best,
Pavel

On 5/15/15 9:10 AM, mohamed noor wrote:

Dear all

Is there a single (or a few) metrics that can be used to quantitatively assess map quality instead of looking at each one in Coot? For example, I want to compare the effect of having low completeness in the low resolution shells.

Thanks.

_______________________________________________
phenixbb mailing list
phenixbb@phenix-online.org
http://phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb
Unsubscribe: phenixbb-leave@phenix-online.org