[3dem] [ccpem] Which resolution?

[Ludtke, Steven J.]

As I said, the error-bar thing is certainly not a new idea I am seeking credit for. I'm sure we have all played with it at some point over the years.

Given that it is fairly obvious (as a general idea), and solves many (but not all) problems, maybe we could come to some agreement over a standard way to compute the error bars? I think that would be far less contentious than arguments over specific thresholds (I also don't much care about the specific value). That is, I think we might be able to approach a consensus that "if FSC curves are used, they must be presented with error bars, which are then used to put an uncertainty value on the resolution", and perhaps much of this 40 year old debate could be finally put to rest?  Clearly this doesn't solve every problem, and weaknesses in the FSC itself will still exist, but this one issue has haunted us for far too long...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Ludtke, Ph.D. <sludtke at bcm.edu<mailto:sludtke at bcm.edu>>                      Baylor College of Medicine
Charles C. Bell Jr., Professor of Structural Biology
Dept. of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology                      (www.bcm.edu/biochem<http://www.bcm.edu/biochem>)
Academic Director, CryoEM Core                                        (cryoem.bcm.edu<http://cryoem.bcm.edu>)
Co-Director CIBR Center                                    (www.bcm.edu/research/cibr<http://www.bcm.edu/research/cibr>)



On Feb 21, 2020, at 12:15 PM, Carlos Oscar Sorzano <coss at cnb.csic.es<mailto:coss at cnb.csic.es>> wrote:

- @Marin, I always suffer with your reference to sloppy statis

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ncmir.ucsd.edu/pipermail/3dem/attachments/20200221/37ca14ea/attachment.html>