Metrics for comparison of crystallographic maps

By Alexandre Urzhumtsev, Pavel V. Afonine, Vladimir Y. Lunin, T. C. Terwilliger, Paul D. Adams. 2014

26 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Rank scaling of Fourier syntheses leads to new tools for the comparison of crystallographic contour maps. The new metrics are in better agreement with a visual map analysis than the conventional map correlation coefficient.

Subfields: Materials Chemistry

How researchers see this paper

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

In Materials Chemistry

1. Paul D. Adams
2. Pavel V. Afonine
3. Randy J. Read
4. T. C. Terwilliger
5. Nigel W. Moriarty
6. T. Croll
7. A. McCoy
8. Jane S. Richardson

Citations in the corpus

• Macromolecular structure determination using X-rays, neutrons and electrons: recent developments in Phenix (2019, methodology): “New metrics to compare crystallographic contour maps are available in the Map Sigma Level Comparison tool (phenix.map_comparison; Urzhumtsev et al., 2014).”
• Automated map sharpening by maximization of detail and connectivity (2018, methodology): “This is calculated by creating a model-based map and obtaining the correlation between density values in the model-based map and those in the map of interest (see Urzhumtsev et al., 2014 for an analysis of related metrics).”
• FEM: feature-enhanced map (2014, methodology): “A better approach is to use thresholds that select equal volumes of the map, which may not correspond to identical thresholds as expressed in r.m.s. deviations (Urzhumtsev et al., 2014).”
• Polder maps: improving OMIT maps by excluding bulk solvent (2017, methodology): “Also, Urzhumtsev et al. (2014) have demonstrated that CCpeak is more adequate for the comparison of three-dimensional functions.”