Thank you for clarifying this James. Those details
are indeed often
lost/misinterpreted when the paper is discussed in journal club, so your
comment was especially helpful.
Best wishes,
Thomas
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 20:38, James Holton <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> As one of the people involved (I'm author #74 out of 88 on PMID
> 21293373), I can tell you that about half of the three million
> snapshots were blank, but we wanted to be honest about the number
that
> were collected, as well as the "minimum" number that were needed to
> get a useful data set. The blank images were on purpose, since the
> nanocrystals were diluted so that there would be relatively few
> double-hits. As many of you know, multiple lattices crash
autoindexing
algorithms!
>
> Whether or not a blank image or a failed autoindexing run
qualifies as
> "conforming to our existing model" or not I suppose is a matter of
> semantics. But yes, I suppose some details do get lost between the
> actual work and the press release!
>
> In case anyone wants to look at the data, it has been deposited in
the
> PDB under 3PCQ, and the detailed processing methods published
under PMID:
> 20389587.
>
> -James Holton
> MAD Scientist
>
> On 2/9/2011 10:38 AM, Thomas Juettemann wrote:
>>
>>
http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=20045.php
>>
>>
http://home.slac.stanford.edu/pressreleases/2011/20110202.htm
>>
>> I think it is pretty exciting, although they only take the few
>> datasets that conform to their existing model:
>>
>> "The team combined 10,000 of the three million snapshots they
took to
>> come up with a good match for the known molecular structure of
>> Photosystem I."
>
>
