Dear All,

 

Kay helped me reprocess the data set with XDS, the program pick up I422 as space group. It turned out that when I originally used XDS, I used spindle axis -1, 0, 0 for the APS ID22 detector, it should be 1, 0, 0. The output from XDS:

 

SUBSET OF INTENSITY DATA WITH SIGNAL/NOISE >= -3.0 AS FUNCTION OF RESOLUTION

RESOLUTION     NUMBER OF REFLECTIONS    COMPLETENESS R-FACTOR  R-FACTOR COMPARED I/SIGMA   R-meas  CC(1/2)  Anomal  SigAno   Nano

   LIMIT     OBSERVED  UNIQUE  POSSIBLE     OF DATA   observed  expected                                      Corr

 

     8.87        4414     841       858       98.0%       2.7%      3.2%     4402   45.77     3.0%    99.9*   -18    0.664     577

     6.33        7883    1374      1385       99.2%       3.7%      3.9%     7872   35.76     4.1%    99.9*   -17    0.687    1108

     5.18       10205    1724      1734       99.4%       5.1%      4.9%    10195   29.38     5.6%    99.8*   -15    0.748    1468

     4.49       12194    2042      2055       99.4%       5.0%      4.7%    12185   30.77     5.4%    99.8*   -20    0.727    1764

     4.02       13830    2284      2297       99.4%       6.2%      5.9%    13822   24.55     6.7%    99.8*   -15    0.736    2019

     3.67       15377    2501      2530       98.9%       9.4%      9.3%    15368   16.77    10.3%    99.6*   -12    0.752    2245

     3.40       16709    2702      2724       99.2%      14.3%     14.5%    16700   11.31    15.6%    99.2*    -5    0.761    2430

     3.18       18091    2904      2934       99.0%      23.3%     24.6%    18084    7.14    25.4%    98.4*    -3    0.726    2635

     3.00       18105    2972      3107       95.7%      37.3%     40.4%    18071    4.42    40.7%    96.4*    -6    0.665    2624

    total      116808   19344     19624       98.6%       8.2%      8.4%   116699   18.79     9.0%    99.8*   -10    0.724   16870

 

Attached please also find the xtriage log for data processed with XDS.

 

Final model with I422 data set at 3 A resolution looked fine to me, r-free went down from ~0.32 to 0.298, the map even let me correctly fitted one place that supposed to have a Cis-Pro. The final numbers for the model is:

 

r_work = 0.2611

r_free = 0.2983

bonds = 0.002

angles = 0.568

 

Thank you all for all the help!

 

Regards,

 

Tongqing

 

Tongqing Zhou, Ph.D.

Staff Scientist

Structural Biology Section

Vaccine Research Center, NIAID/NIH

Building 40, Room 4609B

40 Convent Drive, MSC3027

Bethesda, MD 20892

(301) 594-8710 (Tel)

(301) 793-0794 (Cell)

(301) 480-2658 (Fax)

******************************************************************************

The information in this e-mail and any of its attachments is confidential and may contain sensitive information. It should not be used by anyone who is not the original intended recipient. If you have received this e-mail in error please inform the sender and delete it from your mailbox or any other storage devices. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases shall not accept liability for any statements made that are sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of the NIAID by one of its representatives.

******************************************************************

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Pavel Afonine [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 2:07 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [phenixbb] UPDATE-- Difficult dataset and refinement--P422? I422?Twinning?

 

Hi,

 

>> 1.    Is it really twinned since including twin-law in refinment gave much

>> better numbers?

 

R-factors may not be directly comparable:

 

G.Murshudov, Appl. Comput. Math., V.10, N.2, 2011, pp.250-261.

 

The strategy is:

 

- check to see if Xtriage tells it's twinned (based on reflection statistics, not just predicted twin laws based on geometry);

- use phenix.model_vs_data to see if it's worth using it.

 

Pavel

 

_______________________________________________

phenixbb mailing list

[email protected]

http://phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb