2018
DOI: 10.1107/s2059798318007726
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Electron diffraction data processing withDIALS

Abstract: Adaptations to the DIALS package are described that make it a suitable choice for processing challenging continuous-rotation electron diffraction data. The results of using the extended package are presented for a case consisting of seven example data sets.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
85
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
2

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 112 publications
(92 citation statements)
references
References 54 publications
0
85
0
Order By: Relevance
“…or DIALS(Clabbers et al 2018) and scaled with AIMLESS(Evans and Murshudov 2013). Structures were solved by molecular replacement with PHASER (McCoy et al 2007) using the WT gelsolin crystal structure (PDB ID 3FFN (Nag et al 2009)) as a search model.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…or DIALS(Clabbers et al 2018) and scaled with AIMLESS(Evans and Murshudov 2013). Structures were solved by molecular replacement with PHASER (McCoy et al 2007) using the WT gelsolin crystal structure (PDB ID 3FFN (Nag et al 2009)) as a search model.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…MicroED data were indexed, integrated, and scaled in DIALS as described (Clabbers et al, 2018; Parkhurst et al, 2016; Waterman et al, 2016; Winter et al, 2018). A resolution cutoff was applied after integration at 1.78Å, where the CC1/2 fell to a value of 0.33 (Table 1).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The diffraction distance was set to 1900mm which corresponds to a crystal to detector distance of 1853mm after taking post-column magnification into account. Camera length was calibrated using diffraction from an aluminum film prior to loading the protein grid and to check for any distortions in the diffraction (Clabbers et al, 2018, 2017).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Taking 1.5% off the calibrated camera distance as an initial estimate resulted in an increase in error in Rfree of more than 3% ( Table 2). The camera distance can be optimized by a postrefinement process with XDS (Kabsch, 2010) and this optimization has also been recently implemented in Refmac (Murshudov et al, 2011;Clabbers et al, 2018), but the refinement likely falls into local minima (Table 2), due to the short wavelength of electrons and broader profiles in diffraction spots along the direction normal to the plate plane of the crystal (Yonekura et al, 2015). Thus, it is best to start with the optimum camera distance.…”
Section: Our Dataset 3 (200kv and Without Energy Filtration) Is Infermentioning
confidence: 99%