Dear Yimin,

without wanting to preempt additional feedback that the XDS developers
might be able to provide (concerning the changes within that July 2024
XDS version that seem to trigger the differences you see), may we
suggest that you have a look at

  
https://www.globalphasing.com/autoproc/wiki/index.cgi?ComparisonProcessing202409

Here we have collected a large amount of information and detailed
comparisons regarding the new 2024 XDS version (that we also shared
and discussed in detail with the XDS developers over the last weeks)
... and just in the last few hours we discovered that (1) a binary for
the previous 2023 version with an extended lifetime is now available
at [1], and that (2) a new/modified 2024 version has been published
with some hints about changes.

We are testing this very latest version (20241002) as we speak and we
will update the comparison page mentioned above accordingly. So
... stay tuned ;-)

Cheers

Clemens

[1] https://xds.mr.mpg.de/

On Wed, Oct 02, 2024 at 04:30:55PM +0200, Yimin Hu wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
> 
> I ran into a problem when I reprocessed a dataset after switching to XDS 
> VERSION Jun 30, 2024.
> 
> Processing the dataset with the old XDS I ended up with these statistics:
> 
> RESOLUTION     NUMBER OF REFLECTIONS    COMPLETENESS R-FACTOR  R-FACTOR 
> COMPARED I/SIGMA   R-meas  CC(1/2)  Anomal  SigAno   Nano
>    LIMIT     OBSERVED  UNIQUE  POSSIBLE     OF DATA   observed  expected      
>                                 Corr
>      5.78       16747    1239      1253       98.9%       7.4%      8.5%    
> 16745   29.13      7.6%    99.9*     2    0.740     465
>      4.10       29921    2220      2226       99.7%       8.9%      8.7%    
> 29921   28.12      9.2%    99.8*     9    0.897     951
>      3.35       40065    2848      2849      100.0%      10.1%      9.3%    
> 40065   23.84     10.4%    99.8*     3    0.841    1264
>      2.91       44213    3390      3390      100.0%      13.5%     13.0%    
> 44213   14.61     14.1%    99.8*   -10    0.717    1537
>      2.60       54235    3827      3827      100.0%      24.6%     28.4%    
> 54235    9.08     25.5%    99.5*   -15    0.611    1758
>      2.38       62062    4270      4270      100.0%      42.5%     57.6%    
> 62062    5.40     44.1%    98.8*   -10    0.565    1973
>      2.20       62076    4589      4589      100.0%      76.3%    111.3%    
> 62076    3.06     79.2%    97.0*    -7    0.549    2138
>      2.06       67437    4941      4941      100.0%     116.7%    176.7%    
> 67437    2.03    121.3%    89.2*    -8    0.541    2311
>      1.94       70590    5226      5268       99.2%     232.1%    363.5%    
> 70579    0.93    241.2%    64.3*    -4    0.511    2451
>     total      447346   32550     32613       99.8%      12.7%     14.4%   
> 447333    9.30     13.2%    99.9*    -5    0.621   14848
> 
> 
> Reprocessing the dataset with the new version I ended up with the following 
> statistics though I kept the parameters essentially the same:
> 
>  RESOLUTION     NUMBER OF REFLECTIONS    COMPLETENESS R-FACTOR  R-FACTOR 
> COMPARED I/SIGMA   R-meas  CC(1/2)  Anomal  SigAno   Nano
>    LIMIT     OBSERVED  UNIQUE  POSSIBLE     OF DATA   observed  expected      
>                                 Corr
> 
>      5.80       16932    1220      1240       98.4%       7.2%      8.5%    
> 16930   28.65      7.5%    99.9*   -39    0.502     459
>      4.12       29888    2207      2209       99.9%       9.9%      9.3%    
> 29888   25.46     10.3%    99.7*     0    0.707     945
>      3.37       34817    2796      2836       98.6%      14.9%     11.7%    
> 34817   17.63     15.5%    99.7*    15*   0.947    1244
>      2.92       42552    3268      3347       97.6%      24.5%     23.5%    
> 42552   10.04     25.5%    99.6*   -12    0.583    1481
>      2.61       54120    3811      3816       99.9%      56.8%     69.2%    
> 54120    6.14     58.9%    98.2*   -14    0.543    1750
>      2.38       60922    4173      4221       98.9%     358.4%    464.1%    
> 60922    2.93    371.4%    93.7*   -18    0.421    1897
>      2.21       52076    3861      4566       84.6%     -99.9%    -99.9%    
> 52076    0.00    -99.9%    66.9*   -37    0.306    1566
>      2.06       40823    3045      4911       62.0%     -99.9%    -99.9%    
> 40823    0.00    -99.9%    33.3*   -39    0.196    1047
>      1.95       34764    2526      5227       48.3%     -99.9%    -99.9%    
> 34764    0.00    -99.9%    14.7*   -48    0.072     585
>     total      366894   26907     32373       83.1%      28.2%     29.1%   
> 366892    7.57     29.2%    99.8*   -16    0.493   10974
> 
> I tried to tweak several parameters, especially for background subtraction, 
> but it didn't really help. It would be great if you could give me some 
> suggestions. Thank you in advance!
> 
> Best,
> Yimin
> 
> 
> --
> Yimin Hu 
> (Pronouns: she/her)
> PhD Student
> Department of Protein Evolution
> Max Planck Institute for Biology, Tübingen

########################################################################

To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1

This message was issued to members of www.jiscmail.ac.uk/CCP4BB, a mailing list 
hosted by www.jiscmail.ac.uk, terms & conditions are available at 
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/

Reply via email to