Hi Frank, EDS already does that. Even so, reproducing the R-factor does not prove that the map is reliable. See for instance 3frk for which the deposited dataset is much smaller and less complete than the one used for refinement. The map from EDS is therefore completely model biased. I only recently started looking for this problem of lower-than-reported completeness with. I have not found a lot of cases, but already too many. Fortunately, at least a few depositors deposited the rest of the dataset after I sent a bug report to the PDB (e.g. 3mbs).
Cheers, Robbie > -----Original Message----- > From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of > Frank von Delft > Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 16:23 > To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK > Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] reliable/unreliable maps? > > Or just print both Rfactors...? > > > On 10/01/2012 15:21, Luca Pellegrini wrote: > > Hi Paul, > > > > > >> What would you rather it say, I'm happy to change the message. "The EDS > does not think that this is a reliable map, in that it is or may be inconsistent > with what the authors were looking at during deposition"? > > How about "Warning: the R-factor calculated for this map differs > significantly from the published R-factor"? > > > > Then we can discuss what is significant ;-) > > > > Luca > > > > Luca Pellegrini > > Department of Biochemistry > > University of Cambridge > > 80 Tennis Court Road > > Cambridge CB2 1GA - UK > > > > Email: lp...@cam.ac.uk > > Tel: 0044-1223-760469 > > Fax: 0044-1223-766002 > > Sanger building, room 3.59
