Dear Carlos, different ways of the map resolution estimation and the difference between the respective values obtained for the same map are discussed in Afonine et al. (2018) Acta Cryst, D74, 814-840. With best wishes, Sacha Urzhumtsev From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Christopher Schlicksup Sent: Monday, August 9, 2021 4:45 PM To: Carlos HENRIQUE FERNANDES Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [phenixbb] Overall map resolution (d_FSC) x local map resolution Hi Carlos, differences like this do not seem abnormal. For local resolution, it is common to get a very broad range of values (ie, 2.8-10Å), but usually the most frequently occurring value is close to the value provided with full-map methods. It can be tough to visualize with color sometimes, but if you look at the volume histogram of the local resolution map in Chimera you can see the distribution of resolution values. For subsequent Phenix programs and for data reporting, I suggest using the full map value. On Mon, Aug 9, 2021 at 1:59 AM Carlos HENRIQUE FERNANDES mailto:[email protected]> wrote: Dear all, I've been finding some discordance between overall map resolution value obtained at phenix.mtriage (d_FSC) and local map resolution values obtained at phenix.local_resolution. phenix.mtriage (using full map and both half maps) provides a d_FSC of 4.31 Å; however, the phenix.local_resolution (using both half maps and not informing the d_FSC) provides local map resolution values have a range of 3.8 - 4.4 Å with most of the map having 4.0 Å resolution with very few parts (only small flexible regions at terminal regions) having 4.3-4.4 Å resolution. Are these differences normal or is there something wrong with my map refinement? Despite d_FSC being 4.31 Å; can I consider my map at 4.0 Å resolution and do the sharpening and dock in map operations at 4.0 Å? Thanks in advance, Carlos Fernandes