[phenixbb] high average b-factor vs. Wilson B - EXPLANATION
pjeffrey at princeton.edu
Fri Aug 6 13:51:46 PDT 2010
No, I was just suggesting that the trace of B-cryst be applied, in the
same way that CNS does, so that less things are hidden in the header and
that the B-iso for each atom would be the same as the effective B-iso
for the atom after applying B-cryst. In fact I'd assumed that was what
phenix.refine did although obviously I had not thought to check.
If you added the anisotropic component of B-cryst I think it would cause
more confusion than it resolves, since it will generate all those
per-atom ANISOU entries even if no TLS or atomic anisotropic refinement
was done, and nearly double the size of a PDB file. My viewpoint is
rather biased to what I historically "expect" to find in PDB file atom
Pavel Afonine wrote:
> Hi Phil,
> Just to make sure I got your point correctly... Are you suggesting to
> add Bcryst to the total ADP as well (so it is always included into
> isotropic B in ATOM record and anisotropic b in ANISOU record),
> similarly to what we already do with TLS contribution?
> If we do that:
> - all atoms will always have ANISOU (because Bcryst is anisotropic);
> - do you know how to convert Bcryst obtained in reciprocal space to the
> one in real space (so it can be added to individual ADP) (never thought
> about it - am I asking something stupid....?)?
> On 8/6/10 12:58 PM, Phil Jeffrey wrote:
>> Pavel Afonine wrote:
>>> in summary, in that email I wrote that there are two ways of how you
>>> can handle the total B-factor and one of its components (Bcryst). You
>>> can subtract the trace of Bcryst and add it to individual ADPs (what
>>> CNS does, for example) or you can keep Bcryst as it is. Both ways do
>>> not change the Fmodel and therefore the R-factors. So I can't see how
>>> you conclude from this about refinement stability. These are purely
>>> formatting/convention things.
>> Strikes me that the convention should be that the B-factors associated
>> with the atoms should be in the PDB B-factor field associated with
>> those atoms, subject to the ability to represent the ADP model.
>> Burying a constant isotropic offset in the PDB header - which might be
>> of variable format depending on what program is used - seems like a
>> good way to get the overall ADP of the model to be incorrectly assessed.
>> This would seem to be analogous to the difference between reporting
>> the equivalent total B-iso in the isotropic B-factor field in TLS
>> refinement (as phenix.refine does) versus reporting just the residual
>> B (REFMAC default behavior). i.e. all the information is in the PDB
>> file somewhere, but it's not necessarily where you expect it to be. I
>> rather prefer the phenix.refine method for this.
>> Since most of the interest with Wilson B seems to be comparing Fmodel
>> with the Fobs, it may make more sense to compare the Wilson B
>> calculated from Fmodel with the Wilson B calculated with Fobs, which
>> might at least cancel out some of the errors in the calculation. The
>> underlying question seems to be "does the distribution of |Fmodel|
>> with resolution match that of |Fobs|".
>> Phil Jeffrey
> phenixbb mailing list
> phenixbb at phenix-online.org
More information about the phenixbb