1,313

edits

From CCP4 wiki

Jump to navigationJump to searchadd R_d which measures radiation damage

Line 17:
Line 17:
~~* ~~measuring quality of averaged intensities/amplitudes~~:~~+

Weiss and Hilgenfeld <ref name="WeHi97">M.S. Weiss and R. Hilgenfeld (1997) On the use of the merging R-factor as a quality indicator for X-ray data. J. Appl. Crystallogr. 30, 203-205[http://dx.doi.org/10.1107/S0021889897003907]</ref>).

Weiss and Hilgenfeld <ref name="WeHi97">M.S. Weiss and R. Hilgenfeld (1997) On the use of the merging R-factor as a quality indicator for X-ray data. J. Appl. Crystallogr. 30, 203-205[http://dx.doi.org/10.1107/S0021889897003907]</ref>).

−==== measuring quality of averaged intensities/amplitudes ====

for intensities use

for intensities use

Line 34:
Line 34:
In the sums above, the summation omits those reflections with just one observation.

In the sums above, the summation omits those reflections with just one observation.

+
+==== measuring radiation damage ====

+
+We can plot (Diederichs <ref name="Di06">K. Diederichs (2006). Some aspects of quantitative analysis and correction of radiation damage. Acta Cryst D62, 96-101 [http://strucbio.biologie.uni-konstanz.de/strucbio/files/Diederichs_ActaD62_96.pdf]</ref>)

+
+<math>

+ R_{d} = \frac{\sum_{hkl} \sum_{|i-j|=d} \vert I_{hkl,i} - I_{hkl,j}\vert}{\sum_{hkl} \sum_{|i-j|=d} (I_{hkl,i} + I_{hkl,j})/2}

+</math>

+
+which gives us the average R-factor of two reflections measured d frames apart. As long as the plot is parallel to the x axis there is no radiation damage. As soon as the plot starts to rise, we see that there's a systematical error contribution due to radiation damage.

+
+Strong wiggles at very high d are irrelevant as only few reflections contribute.

=== Model quality indicators ===

=== Model quality indicators ===

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.

- Not logged in
- Talk
- Contributions
- Log in
- Request account