[phenixbb] xtriage to double-check symmetry
Frank von Delft
frank.vondelft at sgc.ox.ac.uk
Fri Sep 18 00:30:16 PDT 2009
>>>> So I thought I'd listen to xtriage: seemed easy since I have both
>>>> and model in P6522, and I ran:
>>>> phenix.xtriage final.mtz reference.structure.file=final.pdb
Uh-oh.... what I meant is, I have both data and model in ==>P65<==.
(Bad typo -- explains Peter's patient but puzzled response, which did
however confirm I'd understood correctly after all :)
So, again: I have *some* lower symmetry (not P1, though); should I
expect xtriage to print out tests for P6522 somewhere? Because I don't
<later> That said: after updating phenix to 1.4-162, I now do find that
table in the output (attached, last table), and it seems we're
in-between: seems we have probably indeed missed the two-fold, so now
we must figure out why it "didn't refine" in P6522.
Thanks for you help and explanation!
> But isn't P6522 already the highest symmetry? I think if you run X-triage
> on the data reduced as P65, it will as you say check the extra operations
> implied by p6522 and see if they are justified.
> If the data is already reduced in p6522, those reflections have already
> been merged and there is no way to tell how good the agreement was?
> I don't think xtriage will look at your model- but then I've never
> given it a model.
> I would guess from your lower Rfree in P65 that it is the lower symmetry-
> the 2-fold operators that make it almost fit p6522 are psuedosymmetry,
> noncrystallographic symmetry that almost fits the p6522 operators but
> not quite.
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
More information about the phenixbb