view article

Figure 9
Scatter plots showing the relationship between the different resolution estimates and their different ways of calculation. (a) dFSC calculated using original half-maps versus dFSC using sharpened half-maps; a mask was used in both cases. As expected, dFSC is essentially insensitive to map sharpening. (b) Comparison of dFSC extracted from the EMDB (referred to as dEMDB) with recalculated values using available half-maps with masking applied (red) and not applied (blue); no sharpening was used in both cases. (c) dFSC_model calculated at FSC 0 (red), 0.143 (blue) and 0.5 (green) versus dFSC from available half-maps (using a mask, no sharpening). The correlation CC(dFSC, dFSC_model) is 0.929, 0.959 and 0.973 for FSC thresholds at 0.5, 0 and 0.143, respectively. (d) dmodel versus dFSC calculated using original half-maps (no sharpening). The correlation is rather marked, but clearly dmodel shows lower resolution, likely owing to smearing by atomic displacement parameters. (e) d99 calculated using the original (no sharpening) masked map versus dFSC calculated using the original half-maps (no sharpening). (f) dFSC_model calculated with and without masking (taken at FSC = 0.143). Clearly, this resolution metric is not sensitive to using a mask. (g) d99 calculated using original and sharpened maps (masking was used in both cases). Since map attenuation performed using phenix.auto_sharpen can sharpen or blur the map, the d99 value can be smaller or larger, depending on whether blurring or sharpening occurred. (h) d99 calculated using a masked map and an unmasked map (no sharpening in both cases). Since masking eliminates the noise outside the molecular region, d99 calculated without masking results in systematically smaller values.

Journal logoSTRUCTURAL
ISSN: 2059-7983
Follow Acta Cryst. D
Sign up for e-alerts
Follow Acta Cryst. on Twitter
Follow us on facebook
Sign up for RSS feeds