[phenixbb] Appropriate number of reflections for FreeR
nechols at lbl.gov
Sat Nov 2 09:19:39 PDT 2013
What about the effect of missing data on maps used in real-space refinement?
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 11:29 PM, Pavel Afonine <pafonine at lbl.gov> wrote:
> Hi Rongjin,
> it's not really waste: test reflections are used not only in Rfree
> calculations, but in ML refinement target parameters estimations, so more
> test reflections you use better these estimations are, and so better
> refinement target is. I still believe that 10% is a good number, and any
> capping the amount of test reflections is NOT necessary: it's not about
> getting a statistically meaningful amount of them overall, but rather it's
> about getting the right spread of them across the whole resolution range,
> and the right amount across all of the thin slices of resolution. I imagine
> by capping them at a particular number you may end up having a couple of
> test reflections per certain bin, which isn't great.
> On 11/1/13 9:18 PM, Rongjin Guan wrote:
>> Thank you, Nat and Pavel. I just came back and saw replies from both of
>> you. Thanks a lot.
>> I have an impression that free_R set has max 2000 reflections, and more
>> importantly, each resolution shell has at least
>> 50 reflections, so I feel >4500 in the free_R set / 150 each shell kind
>> of luxury ("waste"), and if I have more reflections in the refinement
>> set, I could have better data/parameters ratio. But this may not make
>> much difference.
>> Best, and have a great weekend.
>> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 3:18 PM, Nathaniel Echols <nechols at lbl.gov
>> <mailto:nechols at lbl.gov>> wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 12:13 PM, rjguan <rjguan at gmail.com
>> <mailto:rjguan at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> > I solved a structure with 2.7 A Se-Met data set, with 10%
>> reflections in free_R set.
>> > Now I have 2.0 A native data set, and extended free_R to 2.0A.
>> Now I have >4500 reflections
>> > in free_R set, each resolution shell has >150 reflections. Kind
>> of too much, right?
>> I don't think it's necessarily too much, but it is probably more
>> than you need.
>> > What is the best way to reduce the number of reflections in the
>> free_R set, say, to 5%?
>> > I already built and refined model at 2.7 A, but do not want to
>> redo autobuild.
>> Use the reflection file editor in the GUI - click "More options" in
>> the section for R-free flags, and check the box "Adjust test set
>> size to specified fraction".
>> > Another question: now I have 2.0A data set, shall I use phases
>> from 2.7 A data in refinement?
>> > I compared, without using the phases I got lower R/R_free (about
>> 1% lower).
>> > is this because the 2.0 A data is more accurate than the 2.7 A
>> phases, and I should continue
>> > to refine at 2.0A without the phases from 2.7 A data?
>> It's difficult to reach a conclusion by comparing R-factors alone;
>> maybe you simply need to run more cycles of refinement with phases
>> to get the same result. Alternately, if the crystals aren't truly
>> isomorphous, the phases may be inappropriate for the native
>> structure. But I think with 2.0Å data and a complete model, it is
>> perfectly valid to use the amplitudes-only ML refinement target.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the phenixbb