On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 9:27 AM, Zhang yu
The 'anomalous' signal is not useful to me. It is automatically outputted by HKL2000 if I use the "auto-correction" option. When "Xtriage" analyze data and output completeness, how does it handle anomalous signal?
As far as I know, Xtriage will treat F+ and F- as separate reflections (at least for the completeness analysis), and the number of expected reflections will be doubled if the data are anomalous.
Why I get such big different completeness from .sca and .mtz (converted from the .sca) files? Is that because .sca contains incomplete anomalous while .mtz is non-anomalous?
Yes.
This dataset is with very high mosaicity. Imosflm reject two many reflections during scaling, but HKL2000 kept most of them and outputted acceptable statistics. I don't know why the resulting .sca file is still with severe incompleteness.
My best guess is that you have overlap problems - I think this is a common result of high mosaicity. I don't know what the best way to handle data like this is, unfortunately; hopefully someone with more knowledge of HKL2000 (or other integration software) can chime in. I'd recommend trying XDS too (you can run it through Xia2 which may be easier). Regardless, I still think this looks like a bug in HKL2000, since I can't see how those statistics correspond to the actual data file. -Nat