Jan, tell your reviewer to join us all in the 21st century.
Diederichs and Karplus, Science, about 2 decades ago. (Technically, 2012 <https://science.sciencemag.org/content/336/6084/1030?sid=8becd183-203a-4c7b-8c8d-815e18e15887>, but it really is a long long time ago now.)
On 16/04/2019 18:06, Tim Gruene wrote:
Dear Jan, You statistics look quite solid. R-factors are not good criteria to judge the resolution cut-off. The weighting schemes in refinement programs have much improved since the late 1990s. A good starting point to learn more is Rupp's "Against Method: Table 1 -Cui Bono?", https://doi.org/10.1016/j.str. 2018.04.013 Best regards, Tim On Tuesday, April 16, 2019 6:57:06 PM CEST Jan van Agthoven wrote:Hi everyone, I’m trying to publish two structures at 3.1Å resolution with the following refinement statistics: Resolution range (Å) 49.2-3.1 49.3-3.1 Rfactor (%) 24.0 (32.4) 23.4 (32.0) Rfree (%) 26.6 (29.2) 26.3 (31.6) Data collection Completeness 100 (100) 100 (100) Redundancy 6.9 (7.0) 6.2 (6.3) Molecules in asymmetric unit 1 1 Average I/σ 14.1 (1.7) 15.3 (2.0) Rmerge (%) 14.9 (100) 12.7 (100) Rmeas (%) 16.2 (100) 13.9 (100) Rsym (%) 6.2 (68.6) 5.5 (57.1) Wilson B-factor 65.6 62.7 I’ve been told that the Rfree factor in the last shell are too high. Does anyone know how I can improve these Rfree factors other then cutting the resolution, which already is rather low? ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1
######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1
