Hi Felix,
Excuse my question, but what have you discovered about lysozyme that we haven't already known before which justifies all these efforts?
After all, we're mostly after finding solutions to biological problems, aren't we?
Boaz
Boaz Shaanan, Ph.D.
Dept. of Life Sciences
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
Beer-Sheva 84105
Israel
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Phone: 972-8-647-2220 Skype: boaz.shaanan
Fax: 972-8-647-2992 or 972-8-646-1710
________________________________________
From: CCP4 bulletin board [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Felix Frolow [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 1:40 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] IUCr committees, depositing images
I could not agree less. There is constant development of the software for refinement that allow to do things that were not
possible or were not necessary in the past such as intelligent refinement of occupancies of mutually exclusive sites, entities and conformations.
I frequently remeasure lysozyme crystals. I use them as a test system for the beam lines, new detectors, novel software developments, refinement improvement etc. Sometimes I am collecting data in quite different wavelength than of existing structures. And what about diffraction data from a chemically modified lysozyme molecule?
They are good data that show evolution of the beam line stations if they are keeper in historical order.
To store them all, or not to store at all…
Storage of the diffraction data is not a drinking club with muscle-bound selectors outside :-)
Felix Frolow
Dr Felix Frolow
Professor of Structural Biology and Biotechnology
Department of Molecular Microbiology
and Biotechnology
Tel Aviv University 69978, Israel
Acta Crystallographica F, co-editor
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
Tel: ++972-3640-8723
Fax: ++972-3640-9407
Cellular: 0547 459 608
On Oct 18, 2011, at 12:52 , 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.
>
> 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.
>
> regards,
> Chris
> ____________________________________________
> Chris Morris
> [log in to unmask]
> Tel: +44 (0)1925 603689 Fax: +44 (0)1925 603634
> Mobile: 07921-717915
> Skype: chrishgmorris
> http://pims.structuralbiology.eu/
> http://www.citeulike.org/blog/chrishmorris
> Daresbury Lab, Daresbury, Warrington, UK, WA4 4AD
|