Thanks Pavel for the tip,
will the ncs.type=torsion work with 1.7.3-928 or do I have to update ? We have
>90% complete data to 2.3Å and 40% completeness to 2.1 Å.
Jürgen
On Mar 28, 2012, at 2:15 AM, Pavel Afonine wrote:
Hi Jürgen,
in phenix.refine I would do:
phenix.refine [PDB] [mtz] twin
Hi Jürgen,
in phenix.refine I would do:
phenix.refine [PDB] [mtz] twin_law="h,-k,-l" main.ncs=true ncs.type=torsion
(or equivalent using the GUI).
Note, "ncs.type=torsion" will use the new NCS handling machinery that takes
care of NCS automatically with no need the user to provide definitions f
Unless you have very good reason it is better to use highest possible space
group (without going over). Then you do not have problem of related reflections
and covariances between them, If you go to P1 then reflection will be related
with crystallographic as well as NCS as well as twin "symmetr
I would say that you should use ncs restraints in any case. NCS relates atoms
and twin relates intensities. In some sense presence of twinning reduces
information contents (in the limiting case the number of (effective)
observervations becomes twice less) of the data and using NCS decreases the
Thanks Garib for your input. And yes we do see some split spots. We used XDS to
overcome (I hope) most problems but still intensities of perfectly overlapping
reflections will be too large. Would you think it's safer to integrate the data
in P1 as symmetry mates will not be merged and then solve
Dear CCP4BBers and PhenixBBers (cross posting here, since we all read both
anyhow)
to the experts out there here's my question:
We have a P21 dataset with 2 molecules in the asu and a refined twin fraction
of 38% according to phenix.refine using a twin law operator.
My gut feeling tells me tha
