Best way would be to generate from probability distributions derived after 
refinement, but it has a problem that you need to integrate over all errors. 
Another, simpler way would be generate using Wilson distribution multiple times 
and do refinement multiple times and average results. I have not done any tests 
but on paper it looks like a sensible procedure.

regards
Garib



On 11 Oct 2011, at 20:58, Ethan Merritt wrote:

> On Tuesday, October 11, 2011 12:33:09 pm Garib N Murshudov wrote:
>> In the limit yes. however limit is when we do not have solution, i.e. when 
>> model errors are very large.  In the limit map coefficients will be 0 even 
>> for 2mFo-DFc maps. In refinement we have some model. At the moment we have 
>> choice between 0 and DFc. 0 is not the best estimate as Ed rightly points 
>> out. We replace (I am sorry for self promotion, nevertheless: Murshudov et 
>> al, 1997) "absent" reflection with DFc, but it introduces bias. Bias becomes 
>> stronger as the number of "absent" reflections become larger. We need better 
>> way of estimating "unobserved" reflections. In statistics there are few 
>> appraoches. None of them is full proof, all of them are computationally 
>> expensive. One of the techniques is called multiple imputation.
> 
> I don't quite follow how one would generate multiple imputations in this case.
> 
> Would this be equivalent to generating a map from (Nobs - N) refls, then
> filling in F_estimate for those N refls by back-transforming the map?
> Sort of like phase extension, except generating new Fs rather than new phases?
> 
>       Ethan
> 
> 
> 
>> It may give better refinement behaviour and less biased map. Another one is 
>> integration over all errors (too many parameters for numerical integration, 
>> and there is no closed form formula) of model as well as experimental data. 
>> This would give less biased map with more pronounced signal.
>> 
>> Regards
>> Garib
>> 
>> 
>> On 11 Oct 2011, at 20:15, Randy Read wrote:
>> 
>>> If the model is really bad and sigmaA is estimated properly, then sigmaA 
>>> will be close to zero so that D (sigmaA times a scale factor) will be close 
>>> to zero.  So in the limit of a completely useless model, the two methods of 
>>> map calculation converge.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> Randy Read
>>> 
>>> On 11 Oct 2011, at 19:47, Ed Pozharski wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 10:47 -0700, Pavel Afonine wrote:
>>>>> better, but not always. What about say 80% or so complete dataset?
>>>>> Filling in 20% of Fcalc (or DFcalc or bin-averaged <Fobs> or else - it
>>>>> doesn't matter, since the phase will dominate anyway) will highly bias
>>>>> the map towards the model.
>>>> 
>>>> DFc, if properly calculated, is the maximum likelihood estimate of the
>>>> observed amplitude.  I'd say that 0 is by far the worst possible
>>>> estimate, as Fobs are really never exactly zero.  Not sure what the
>>>> situation would be when it's better to use Fo=0, perhaps if the model is
>>>> grossly incorrect?  But in that case the completeness may be the least
>>>> of my worries.
>>>> 
>>>> Indeed, phases drive most of the model bias, not amplitudes.  If model
>>>> is good and phases are good then the DFc will be a much better estimate
>>>> than zero.  If model is bad and phases are bad then filling in missing
>>>> reflections will not increase bias too much.  But replacing them with
>>>> zeros will introduce extra noise.  In particular, the ice rings may mess
>>>> things up and cause ripples.
>>>> 
>>>> On a practical side, one can always compare the maps with and without
>>>> missing reflections.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> ------
>>> Randy J. Read
>>> Department of Haematology, University of Cambridge
>>> Cambridge Institute for Medical Research      Tel: + 44 1223 336500
>>> Wellcome Trust/MRC Building                   Fax: + 44 1223 336827
>>> Hills Road                                    E-mail: rj...@cam.ac.uk
>>> Cambridge CB2 0XY, U.K.                       www-structmed.cimr.cam.ac.uk
>> 
>> Garib N Murshudov 
>> Structural Studies Division
>> MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology
>> Hills Road 
>> Cambridge 
>> CB2 0QH UK
>> Email: ga...@mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk 
>> Web http://www.mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Ethan A Merritt
> Biomolecular Structure Center,  K-428 Health Sciences Bldg
> University of Washington, Seattle 98195-7742

Garib N Murshudov 
Structural Studies Division
MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology
Hills Road 
Cambridge 
CB2 0QH UK
Email: ga...@mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk 
Web http://www.mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk



Reply via email to