Re: [ccp4bb] [EXTERNAL] [ccp4bb] [6HR5] collected on an Eiger so Rmerge not relevant

2019-08-01 Thread Ivan Shabalin
Clemens, I have not looked at the structure, but the issues you described are alarming. It is a little sad because the paper itself seems very comprehensive and rigorous. It is great to hear so many voices advocating for depositing raw images. I hope more researchers will be convinced to do

Re: [ccp4bb] [EXTERNAL] [ccp4bb] [6HR5] collected on an Eiger so Rmerge not relevant

2019-08-01 Thread Kay Diederichs
Hi Clemens, thank you for looking into this! To me, a "structure" that has a few sequence shifts does not appear useful at all - rather, it taints the PDB. This one should be blacklisted, like 6MO[0,1,2]. It's painful to learn that despite all the validation that is performed before and at depo

Re: [ccp4bb] [EXTERNAL] [ccp4bb] [6HR5] collected on an Eiger so Rmerge not relevant

2019-08-01 Thread Clemens Vonrhein
Hi Ivan, On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 05:32:24PM -0400, Ivan Shabalin wrote: > And Rfree of 36% seems really high. If you look at the maps (e.g. after some re-refinement with your favourite refinement package) it seems as if there are a few sequence shifts (around and after A78), some poor density and

Re: [ccp4bb] [EXTERNAL] [ccp4bb] [6HR5] collected on an Eiger so Rmerge not relevant

2019-07-31 Thread Ivan Shabalin
Hi Clemens, I fully agree with you, especially on overall data collection strategy and on image deposition. It looks like an interesting and mysterious case. Mean I Over Sigma is reported as 2.2 - I'm curious why resolution was not extend. Since they disregarded Rmerge (a reasonable thing to

Re: [ccp4bb] [EXTERNAL] [ccp4bb] [6HR5] collected on an Eiger so Rmerge not relevant

2019-07-31 Thread Clemens Vonrhein
Hi, On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 07:11:10PM +0100, Weston Lane wrote: > Thanks for the response. I did look at the multiplicity of the > datasets in their table and while I suppose 6.9x redundancy is sort > of high for P2 spacegroup it's actually lower than some of the other > datasets (presumably non-

Re: [ccp4bb] [EXTERNAL] [ccp4bb] [6HR5] collected on an Eiger so Rmerge not relevant

2019-07-31 Thread Weston Lane
Edward, Thanks for the response. I did look at the multiplicity of the datasets in their table and while I suppose 6.9x redundancy is sort of high for P2 spacegroup it's actually lower than some of the other datasets (presumably non-Eiger) in the table with good overall Rmerge (e.g. a C2 datase

Re: [ccp4bb] [EXTERNAL] [ccp4bb] [6HR5] collected on an Eiger so Rmerge not relevant

2019-07-31 Thread Edward A. Berry
I think it is not really the detector, but the strategy. If you decrease exposure time by a factor of ten and make up for it by 10 x higher redundancy, then obviously R-merge, which is a measure of accuracy of the individual frames, is going to suffer. Chi^2 statistics can distinguish this from