Table 1.

The application of Tight ω‐Restraints Significantly Increases Overall R‐Values over the 12 Test Cases

			Depositedb		R work			R free
PDB ID	Software	Resa	R work	R free	Std.c	Tightc	Δc	Std.c	Tightc	Δc
2CWS	SHELXL	1.00	10.8	13.8	10.9	11.7	0.8	12.8	13.8	1.0
2GUD	REFMAC	0.94	14.5	15.5	13.6	14.1	0.5	15.2	16.1	0.9
2OV0	SHELXL	0.75	12.8	13.9	13.1	13.7	0.6	14.1	14.7	0.6
2P5K	REFMAC	1.00	13.5	15.9	13.0	13.2	0.2	15.4	15.9	0.5
2PNE	REFMAC	0.98	14.1	17.0	13.5	14.5	1.0	16.4	17.5	1.1
2QSK	REFMAC	1.00	13.9	16.1	13.7	14.2	0.5	15.9	16.5	0.6
3D1P	REFMAC	0.98	12.3	13.4	12.2	12.7	0.5	13.5	14.1	0.6
3F7L	SHELXL	0.99	11.9	14.2	11.7	11.8	0.1	14.0	14.3	0.3
3QL9	PHENIX	0.93	12.8	13.6	11.9	11.9	0.0	12.8	13.1	0.3
4AQO	REFMAC	0.99	12.8	16.4	13.0	13.7	0.7	16.6	16.9	0.3
4JP6	REFMAC	1.00	15.8	18.4	16.5	16.6	0.1	18.9	19.1	0.2
4MTU	SHELXL	0.97	14.1	15.7	14.3	14.8	0.5	15.4	15.8	0.4
	Average	0.96					0.5			0.6
	σ	0.07					0.3			0.3
	P valued				3.0E‐04			3.8E‐05

^aResolution (in Å).

^b R _work and R _free values (in %) recalculated by Phenix for each model as deposited in the pdb (as was done by CR²¹).

^cReports R‐values (in %) for models from refinement using standard ω‐restraints (Std) or tight ω−restraints (tight), and the “tight – std” difference (Δ).

^dA paired, two‐tailed t‐test was used to obtain P values.