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.