On Thu, 2013-06-13 at 08:44 -0700, Andrea Edwards wrote:
> In this case, the author should report a correlation coefficient along
> with the other standard statistics (I/sigI, Rmerg, Completeness,
> redundancy, ect.)?
Won't hurt.
> What about Rpim instead of Rmerg? and if Rpim is reported, what should
> be the criteria for resolution cutoff?
Rmerge is known to be deeply flawed for ~15 years. IMHO, it shall not
be reported at all. While Rpim is better, the whole point of
Karplus&Diederichs is that R-type measures are not very useful in
deciding resolution cutoff.
> Also, if this paper is the "new standard" how should we regard
> statistic reported in the literature?
We should keep in mind that conservative resolution cutoff criteria has
been used in the field for decades.
> Or.. more importantly, how do we go about reviewing current literature
> that does not report this statistic?
Structures refined up to I/sigma=2 should be considered likely to have
been refined to resolution that was cut off too low.
With that said, I am pretty sure that in vast majority of cases
structural conclusions derived with I/s=2 vs CC1/2=0.5 vs DR=0 cutoff
will be essentially the same.
>
--
"I'd jump in myself, if I weren't so good at whistling."
Julian, King of Lemurs
