[3dem] Which resolution?

[Penczek, Pawel A]

Marin,

The statistics in 2010 review is fine. You may disagree with assumptions, but I can assure you the "statistics" (as you call it) is fine. Careful reading of the paper would reveal to you this much.

Regards,
Pawel

On Feb 16, 2020, at 10:38 AM, Marin van Heel <marin.vanheel at googlemail.com> wrote:

?

**** EXTERNAL EMAIL ****

Dear Pawel and All others ....
This 2010 review is - unfortunately - largely based on the flawed statistics I mentioned before, namely on the a priori assumption that the inner product of a signal vector and a noise vector are ZERO (an orthogonality assumption).  The (Frank & Al-Ali 1975) paper we have refuted on a number of occasions (for example in 2005, and most recently in our BioRxiv paper) but you still take that as the correct relation between SNR and FRC (and you never cite the criticism...).
Sorry
Marin

On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 10:42 AM Penczek, Pawel A <Pawel.A.Penczek at uth.tmc.edu<mailto:Pawel.A.Penczek at uth.tmc.edu>> wrote:
?Dear Teige,

I am wondering whether you are familiar with

Resolution measures in molecular electron microscopy.
Penczek PA. Methods Enzymol. 2010.
Citation

Methods Enzymol. 2010;482:73-100. doi: 10.1016/S0076-6879(10)82003-8.

You will find there answers to all questions you asked and much more.

Regards,
Pawel Penczek


Regards,
Pawel
_______________________________________________
3dem mailing list
3dem at ncmir.ucsd.edu<mailto:3dem at ncmir.ucsd.edu>
https://mail.ncmir.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/3dem<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mail.ncmir.ucsd.edu_mailman_listinfo_3dem&d=DwMFaQ&c=bKRySV-ouEg_AT-w2QWsTdd9X__KYh9Eq2fdmQDVZgw&r=yEYHb4SF2vvMq3W-iluu41LlHcFadz4Ekzr3_bT4-qI&m=3-TZcohYbZGHCQ7azF9_fgEJmssbBksaI7ESb0VIk1Y&s=XHMq9Q6Zwa69NL8kzFbmaLmZA9M33U01tBE6iAtQ140&e=>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ncmir.ucsd.edu/pipermail/3dem/attachments/20200216/ae8bbb79/attachment.html>