General quadratic functions in real and reciprocal space and their application to likelihood phasing.

By Kevin Cowtan. 2000

67 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics, Materials Chemistry, Physical and Theoretical Chemistry

How researchers see this paper

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

In Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics

1. P. Emsley
2. A. McCoy
3. Randy J. Read
4. Martyn D. Winn
5. K. Wilson
6. A. Leslie
7. Philip R. Evans
8. H. Powell

In Materials Chemistry

1. Randy J. Read
2. A. McCoy
3. G. Murshudov
4. Martyn D. Winn
5. Ronan M. Keegan
6. G. Bunkoczi
7. T. Croll
8. Paul D. Adams

In Physical and Theoretical Chemistry

1. Randy J. Read
2. K. Wilson
3. S. McNicholas
4. E. Potterton
5. A. Leslie
6. A. McCoy
7. Kevin Cowtan
8. Philip R. Evans

Citations in the corpus

• Features and development of Coot (2010, neutral): “Currently, suitable files are generated by the following software: Phaser (Storoni et al. , 2004), REFMAC (Murshudov et al. , 1997), phenix.refine (Adams et al. , 2002), DM (Zhang et al. , 1997), Parrot (Cowtan, 2010), Pirate (Cowtan, 2000) and BUSTER (Blanc et al. , 2004).”
• Overview of the CCP4 suite and current developments (2011, methodology): “Pirate can give better results, but has been found to be inconveniently slow.”
• Recent developments in classical density modification (2010, unknown): “The DM calculation was very fast (a mean of 6 s per structure) and the Parrot calculation only slightly slower (a mean of 10 s per structure), while the statistical method of Pirate was approximately two orders of magnitude slower (a mean of 887 s per structure).”