I would first look at the dataset stats and define a resolution range
mainly based on I/sigI >1 and cc1/2 >0.5. Based on this, would take the
good resolution datasets only.
Further for comparing these mtz after refinement, I personally prefer
looking at the electron density maps rather than just g
THis is always a difficult decision. More commonly I have worried about the
best resolution cut off.
Judge on high Rmerges? Keep the overall R value acceptably low?? etc etc..
I always come back to the map - is it sharper with the extra data? Is more
unmodelled solvent showing up? etc..
But these
Hi,
An alternative is to assess the quality of the phases (which are the
result of the model refined against the data) via radiation-damage
maps (what we call "F(early)-F(late) maps"). Assuming you collected
high enough multiplicity data, autoPROC (which is what you used for
processing, if I under
Dear Murpholino,
What was the reason of trying all these different processing methods? I, and I
guess most other crystallographers will process the data using a standard
procedure and if the results are good, will not try a myriad of other
processing methods. If it is to get most out of a poorl
