Perhaps this kind of discussion that should be continued on the IUCr
forums, once people have had a chance to register. However, to answer
these particular points:
On Tue, 2011-10-18 at 10:52 +0000, Chris Morris wrote:
> Some crystals are hard to make, so storing all the data the best way to get reproducibility. On the other hand, no one needs more images of lysozyme. So using the same standard for every deposition doesn't sound right.
Yes, good point, but...
> The discussion should be held on the basis of overall cost to the research budget - not on the assumption that some costs can be externalised. It is too easy to say "you should store the images, in case I want to reprocess them sometime". IT isn't free, nor is it always cheaper than the associated experimental work. The key comparison is:
>
> Cost of growing new crystals + cost of beam line time
>
> With:
>
> Cost of storing images * probability of processing them again
>
> At present, detectors are improving more quickly than processing software. Sample preparation methods are also improving. These forces both press downward the probability that a particular image will ever be reprocessed.
... this analysis assumes that the only value of the images are for an
improved structure determination of that particular sample in order to
get new scientific insights about it. Software and methods development
have different requirements. The kinds of images that are of interest
may include:
(1) Hard-to-process images of various kinds
(2) Images collected using non-obvious data collection protocols,
especially if someone has put a lot of time and thought into designing
them.
From that point of view, it doesn't matter if a high-quality structure
of the same protein has since been refined and deposited - the original
images can still be useful.
Regards,
Peter.
--
Peter Keller Tel.: +44 (0)1223 353033
Global Phasing Ltd., Fax.: +44 (0)1223 366889
Sheraton House,
Castle Park,
Cambridge CB3 0AX
United Kingdom
|