4.2 Article

On the application of the expected log-likelihood gain to decision making in molecular replacement

期刊

出版社

INT UNION CRYSTALLOGRAPHY
DOI: 10.1107/S2059798318004357

关键词

maximum likelihood; molecular replacement; Phaser; log-likelihood gain; eLLG; LLGI

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust [082961/Z/07/Z]
  2. BBSRC [BB/L006014/1]
  3. Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness [BIO2015-64216-P, BIO2013-49604-EXP, MDM2014-0435-01, BES-2015-071397]
  4. National Institutes of Health [P01GM063210]
  5. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDICAL SCIENCES [P01GM063210] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Molecular-replacement phasing of macromolecular crystal structures is often fast, but if a molecular-replacement solution is not immediately obtained the crystallographer must judge whether to pursue molecular replacement or to attempt experimental phasing as the quickest path to structure solution. The introduction of the expected log-likelihood gain [eLLG; McCoy et al. (2017), Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 114, 3637-3641] has given the crystallographer a powerful new tool to aid in making this decision. The eLLG is the log-likelihood gain on intensity [LLGI; Read & McCoy (2016), Acta Cryst. D72, 375-387] expected from a correctly placed model. It is calculated as a sum over the reflections of a function dependent on the fraction of the scattering for which the model accounts, the estimated model coordinate error and the measurement errors in the data. It is shown how the eLLG may be used to answer the question 'can I solve my structure by molecular replacement?'. However, this is only the most obvious of the applications of the eLLG. It is also discussed how the eLLG may be used to determine the search order and minimal data requirements for obtaining a molecular-replacement solution using a given model, and for decision making in fragment-based molecular replacement, single-atom molecular replacement and likelihood-guided model pruning.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据