Hi Sacha, Yes, that would help. In parallel, to get a little more data on the practical aspects of all this, I think I will do a test to see how much difference taking out a super-test-set of reflections completely makes in overall structure determination from start to finish using fully automated structure determination with phenix.autosol and phenix.autobuild. All the best, Tom T On Oct 1, 2009, at 1:56 AM, Alexandre OURJOUMTSEV wrote:
Hi, Tom, Pavel and Joe,
I'm glad you put that option in, Pavel. However for model- building it is not so straightforward. Normally we are building into density-modified maps. Density modification works poorly when a significant set of reflections is excluded, so this becomes impractical.
As I remember it was a paper (by Blanc, ..., Bricogne ? am I wrong? Ifailed to find it right now) where they faced exactly this problem.Again, as I remember they suggested to exclude the test-set reflectionsfrom the map calculation but , to minimize the map deformation, insteadof them include average Fobs for the corresponding resolution shell.
Is it a way to answer the original question / problem ?
As I understand, a similar technique Pavel already uses to calculate the maps with Fobs missed.
Best regards,
Sacha
Thomas C. Terwilliger Mail Stop M888 Los Alamos National Laboratory Los Alamos, NM 87545 Tel: 505-667-0072 email: [email protected] Fax: 505-665-3024 SOLVE web site: http://solve.lanl.gov PHENIX web site: http:www.phenix-online.org ISFI Integrated Center for Structure and Function Innovation web site: http://techcenter.mbi.ucla.edu TB Structural Genomics Consortium web site: http://www.doe-mbi.ucla.edu/TB CBSS Center for Bio-Security Science web site: http://www.lanl.gov/cbss