The point _ought_ to be the general scientific argument, "does the
experimental evidence support the conclusions made?" The questions
that can be asked & answered will depend on the resolution among many
other things
EM blobs seem to be publishable :-)
Phil
On 11 Apr 2008, at 11:04, Jim Naismith wrote:
> Dear All,
> I have an interesting problem, we have a 3.45A structure of
> a membrane protein. We have just been told that the structure is
> "too low
> resolution to be considered as the uncertainty is too high". We use
> the
> structure to identify helices which have moved.
>
> Is there a blanket ban on low res structure operating at the moment?
>
> The structure was refined extremely tightly, MolPROB 98th centile.
> (I will
> happily send the data and structure to anyone who wishes to
> validate.) The
> editors simply ignored everything but the res limit (I/sI in the
> last shell
> was 1.8 with a redundancy of 4)
>
> Of course we will begin the usual journal shopping. However, does
> anyone
> know how to convince editors and non-xtallographers that 3.45A is
> valid?
>
> Best
> Jim
>
>
> James H. Naismith FRSE |Research mailto:naismith@st-
> and.ac.uk
> Professor of Chemical Biology |Teaching mailto:[log in to unmask]
> Centre for Biomolecular Sciences |Office: 1334-463792
> The North Haugh |Fax : 1334-467229
> The University |Lab : 1334-467245
> St. Andrews |In UK add 0 to start of number
> Fife Scotland, U.K., KY16 9ST |http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~strucbio
>
> The University of St Andrews is a charity registered in Scotland : No
> SC013532
|