Re: [ccp4bb] opinion : phaser RMSD vis-a-vis LLG, Z-score

Protein crystallography Programs for crystallography X-ray detectors
Basic tutorials:
Protein Peptide

CCP4bb navigation

CCP4bb <-- 2007 <-- November 2007 <-- 03 November 2007

Previous message:
Subject: Re: tricky molecular replacement
From: "Randy J {- dot -} Read" rjr27 {- at -} CAM {- dot -} AC {- dot -} UK
Date: 2007-11-03

Next message:
Subject: Re: tricky molecular replacement
From: Jan Abendroth jan {- dot -} abendroth {- at -} GMAIL {- dot -} COM
Date: 2007-11-04

Subject: Re: opinion : phaser RMSD vis-a-vis LLG, Z-score
From: "Randy J {- dot -} Read" rjr27 {- at -} CAM {- dot -} AC {- dot -} UK
Date: 2007-11-03

On Nov 3 2007, Randy J. Read wrote:

> Depends on the purpose. From the LLG, I want to see that it is positive
> (negative means that I'm being too optimistic about the quality of the
> model, i.e. the RMS error is higher or the completeness lower than
> assumed), and I would like to see it increase as the solution becomes
> more complete (i.e. RF score increases with TF, which increases for RF on
> second molecule, and so on). But to assess the significance of a
> solution, I'd place more weight on the LLG.

Oops! Tassos just pointed out my slip here. I'd meant to say that to assess
the significance of a solution, I'd place more weight on the Z-score, not
the LLG.

Randy Read

CCP4bb navigation

CCP4bb <-- 2007 <-- November 2007 <-- 03 November 2007

Previous message:
Subject: Re: tricky molecular replacement
From: "Randy J {- dot -} Read" rjr27 {- at -} CAM {- dot -} AC {- dot -} UK
Date: 2007-11-03

Next message:
Subject: Re: tricky molecular replacement
From: Jan Abendroth jan {- dot -} abendroth {- at -} GMAIL {- dot -} COM
Date: 2007-11-04