Flat bulk-solvent model: obtaining optimal parameters.

30 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Towards automated crystallographic structure refinement with phenix.refine (2012, positive): “…of the overall scale-factor correction, ADPs and occupancies (Cheetham et al., 1992), rigid-body ADPs modeled through TLS (for a review, see Urzhumtsev et al., 2011), local atomic vibrations, and anisotropic scale and bulksolvent parameters, ksol and Bsol (Tronrud, 1997; Fokine & Urzhumtsev, 2002).”
FEM: feature-enhanced map (2014, methodology): “We note that using typical values of ksol and Bsol of 0.35 e Å 3 and 46 Å2, respectively (Fokine & Urzhumtsev, 2002), is suboptimal, occasionally resulting in maps with pronounced artifacts in the bulk-solvent region.”
Polder maps: improving OMIT maps by excluding bulk solvent (2017, methodology): “The areas of the unit cell that are not interpreted in terms of an atomic model are filled with the bulk solvent by constructing a binary mask set to 0 inside the atomic model and 1 elsewhere (Phillips, 1980; Fokine & Urzhumtsev, 2002; Afonine et al., 2005; Weichenberger et al., 2015).”
Bulk-solvent and overall scaling revisited: faster calculations, improved results (2013, background): “…modify (7) by adding the constant kanisotropic ¼ 1þ stV0sþ ðstV1sÞs2: ð9Þ The bulk-solvent scale factor is traditionally defined as kmask ¼ ksol expð Bsols2=4Þ; ð10Þ where ksol and Bsol are the flat bulk-solvent model parameters (Phillips, 1980; Jiang & Brünger, 1994; Fokine & Urzhumtsev, 2002b).”