Re: [ccp4bb]: ++

[Edward Berry <eaberry@lbl.gov>]

***  For details on how to be removed from this list visit the  ***
***          CCP4 home page http://www.ccp4.ac.uk         ***



Edward Berry wrote:
> 
> ernst@UTBC08.CM.UTEXAS.EDU wrote:
> >
> >  However, when I calculate the correlation between pairs I get
> >  a highest value of .75 with the rest .62-.68.  I did have to
> >  fudge the cell constants because mapman requires identical
> >  cell params.   Are the CC a bit low because of the fudging
> >  of the cell params or am I wrong to think that all of the
> >  dmmulti maps should be nearly identical?  If I am wrong
> >  do I STILL need to combine the maps (or phases) somehow
> >  in order to get as much information into a single map as is
> >  possible?
> >
> >  TIA
> >
> >  Steve Ernst
> In my experience 60-70 is quite high correlation for the initial
> MIR phases. The reason one needs to do averaging is that the initial


Apologies if I misunderstood the question. I also would expect that
after expanding the averaged map out into each cell, the correlation
would be quite high. Sounds like a bug in the program or in your
script, or as you suggest a misunderstanding of what dmmulti is
doing. Could it be it completes the cycle by calculating structure
factors from the averaged maps, then making new maps with these phases?
I'm not familiar with dmmulti but a glance at the documentation shows
it makes HKLout files, no MAPout. So did you calculate the maps yourself?
What coefficients? 

Ed