Thank you for your responses. Actually, the data are very complete: 99.6%
total and 99.2% in the high resolution shell. Only 2% of data were used for
cross validation because there were a large number of reflections.
I had calculated omit maps. At first when I discovered the presence of the
lower
I would be concerned about the completeness of the data if adding Fcalc values
has such a large effect on the appearance of this electron density.
[Snipped from the full message, which is appended below]
> The program that kept showing me two forms bound was not
> substituting Fcalc for unobserved reflections. So, I turned on the option
> to substitute Fcalc, and the minor form disappeared � the density looked
> like it did in the second pro
Please excuse me for bringing up an old issue. I have an interesting
example of a difference seen when DFc was substituted for missing
reflections versus when it wasn¹t. Maybe others had this experience. I had
a structure in which the electron density showed two overlapping¹ ligands
bound in the
