[phenixbb] Fwd: ML with Twinning?
wtempel at gmail.com
Wed Dec 16 12:21:15 PST 2015
please allow me to use this prompt for my twinning-related question.
A recent version of xtriage prints this warning:
It might be worthwhile carrying out refinement with a twin specific target
Please note however that R-factors from twinned refinement cannot be
compared to R-factors without twinning, as they will always be lower when a
twin law is used. You should also use caution when interpreting the maps
refinement, as they will have significantly more model bias.
Consider a case where specification of a twin law produces a “significant”
reduction in the residuals, say between 5 and 10%-points. Maps have not
revealed any additional features or model errors. Model geometry (such as
fraction of residues in favored regions of the Ramachandran plot) has not
improved. Should I specify the twin target during refinement?
How do my colleagues decide when to use twin refinement?
————— Forwarded message —————
From: Pavel Afonine pafonine at lbl.gov <http://mailto:email@example.com>
Date: Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 2:06 PM
Subject: Re: [phenixbb] ML with Twinning?
To: “Keller, Jacob” kellerj at janelia.hhmi.org
<http://mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>, “phenixbb at phenix-online.org”
phenixbb at phenix-online.org <http://mailto:email@example.com>
Is Phenix able yet to use the ML target function with twinned data?
Is it in the works?
There are formulas written out:
“Maximum likelihood refinement for twinned structures”:
some one needs to code it.
phenixbb mailing list
phenixbb at phenix-online.org
Unsubscribe: phenixbb-leave at phenix-online.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the phenixbb