Hi Pavel,<br><br>Thank you very much for your fast answer. I just thought that maybe the bulk solvent correction procedure in phenix can really create better maps because with such big complexes I must use all low resolution data. Of course I can try both options but there are so many things to try with this big complex at low resolution that I would like to eliminate options where possible. <br>
<br>Many many thanks,<br><br>Peter.<br><br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Pavel Afonine <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:PAfonine@lbl.gov">PAfonine@lbl.gov</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Hi Peter,<br>
<br>
I guess this my reply will not replace Tom&#39;s or Randy&#39;s one...<br>
<div class="im"><br>
&gt; Should it be the 2mFo-DFc map directly from Phaser or would it be<br>
&gt; better to do rigid body refinement in phenix.refine and use the bulk<br>
&gt; solvent corrected 2mFo-DFc map ?<br>
<br>
</div>- why don&#39;t you try using both options and choose the best outcome?<br>
<br>
- running a round of rigid body refinement in phenix.refine and using<br>
its 2mFo-DFc map will not hurt at least or may make your model and<br>
therefore the map better, so you will have a better starting point.<br>
<br>
Pavel.<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
phenixbb mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:phenixbb@phenix-online.org">phenixbb@phenix-online.org</a><br>
<a href="http://www.phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb" target="_blank">http://www.phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/phenixbb</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br>