[phenixbb] 0 for wxc_scale and wxu_scale?

Pavel Afonine PAfonine at lbl.gov
Wed Nov 26 15:56:01 PST 2008

Hi Frank,

I think it's about where you draw the line... It's very unlikely that at 
3.5A the use of NCS will be a bad idea, and it's very likely that at 
1.0A the use of NCS will be a good one. I don't know which side of that 
line the cases at around 2A resolution are (I believe the only 
systematic and careful study can answer this; or may be someone did it 
then I would appreciate a reference), and, as you rightfully pointed out 
- the automatic procedures are not perfect, so I usually try both -:)


On 11/26/2008 3:34 PM, Frank von Delft wrote:
>>> I am refining a structure with a resolution of 2.1 Angstroem using Phenix.
>>> The spacegroup is P 31 2 1 (No. 152) with a twin fraction of 0.37 and twin 
>>> law -h,-k,l.
>>> In the refinement procedure the NCS (4 chains) constraints are on, using 
>>> individual sites, ADP and occupancy refinement.
>> Just a suggestion to quickly try out... What happens if you turn off the 
>> NCS restraints and do some refinement without using NCS (with and/or 
>> without optimizing the weights)? I know it depends on many factors, but 
>> I've seen a good number of cases at around 2A resolution where the 
>> refinement was better if NCS is not used.
> I can't not respond:  I've never had a case where *careful* evaluation 
> and assignment of NCS groups did /not/ allow me to tighten NCS 
> restraints (without screwing Rfree, of course).  But of course, it 
> requires work:  the default procedures aren't good enough yet.
> phx
> _______________________________________________
> phenixbb mailing list
> phenixbb at phenix-online.org
> http://www.phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://phenix-online.org/pipermail/phenixbb/attachments/20081126/670ceb58/attachment-0003.htm>

More information about the phenixbb mailing list