JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for CCP4BB Archives


CCP4BB Archives

CCP4BB Archives


CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CCP4BB Home

CCP4BB Home

CCP4BB  August 2007

CCP4BB August 2007

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: The importance of USING our validation tools

From:

Richard Baxter <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Richard Baxter <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 16 Aug 2007 12:33:46 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (122 lines)

Dear All,

Without passing any judgement on the veracity of C3b structure 2hr0, I
note that the Ca RMSD of this structure with C3 structure 2a73 was
unusually low, compared to the RMSD of 2a73 to the related entries 2a74
and 2i07 by the same group, bovine C3 structure 2b39 and C3b and C3c
structures 2ice and 2icef. If one took a high resolution structure as a
molecular replacement solution of a new structure at lower resolution
this might be expected, but not vice versa?

As to whether the structures problem arise from malfeasance or neglect,
I do not understand why the journal did not require the raw images be
made available given the evidence presented against the published data,
isn't that what is done in other fields when such issues are raised?
Isn't it more practical to make the availability of raw data upon
request a requirement of publication more practical than trying to set
up a vast repository of images when submission to that repository is
still a matter of choice?

I have several questions regarding the reply that I would like to hear
an answer to, perhaps Todd can help obtain them:

1. Could the statement "Statistical disorder resulting in apparent
'gaps' in the lattice has been observed for other proteins" not be
referenced by citation to numerous deposited structures if they indeed
exist?

2. I was not convinced that the Z-scores of the PHASER solutions were
significant, shouldn't they be greater than 6.0? It didn't look like
density at 0.7 sigma was contiguous over the main chain.

3. Can the domain suggested to fill the void in the asymmetric unit be a
"contaminant" when it must be present in stoichiometric ratio in order
to provide lattice contacts? Why not present a SDS/PAGE gel of a
redissolved crystal, surely that domain would show up.

3. I don't understand why the statement "Bulk-solvent modelling is
contentious, making many refinements necessary to constrain parameters
to obtain acceptable values" was considered an acceptable response to
the question of the low resolution data. Whether one chooses to include
low-resolution data with bulk solvent modelling or to truncate the low
res data is a separate issue from the physical effect of solvent on
intensities at low resolution. 

One point in the reply that seemed reasonable is the issue of B-factor
variation, because the deposited C3 structures do exhibit a wide range
in the average <B>, also resolution, and whether TLS refinement was used
and how heavily restraints were set. However, that does not really
address the issue of seemingly random coil without other contacts having
such great contours at 2.5 sigma.

I would look forward to learning from people with more experience on
these matters.

sincerely,

Richard Baxter

On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 10:11, Green, Todd wrote:
> Hello all,
> 
> I started to write a response to this thread yesterday. I thought the
> title was great even the content of Eleanor's email was very helpful.
> What I didn't like was the indictment in the next to last paragraph.
> This has been followed up with the word fabrication by others. No one
> knows definitively if this was fabricated. You have your suspicions,
> but you don't "know." Fabrication suggests malicious wrong-doing. I
> actually don't think this was the case. I'm probably a bit biased
> because the work comes from an office down the hall from my own. I'd
> like to think that if the structure is wrong that it could be chalked
> up to inexperience rather than malice. To me, this scenario of
> inexperience seems like one that could become more and more prevalent
> as our field opens up to more and more scientists doing structural
> work who are not dedicated crystallographers.
> 
> Having said that, I think Eleanor started an extremely useful thread
> as a way of avoiding the pitfalls of crystallography whether you are a
> novice or an expert. There's no question that this board is the best
> way to advance one's knowledge of crystallography. I actually gave a
> homework assignment that was simply to sign up for the ccp4bb.
> 
> In reference to the previously mentioned work, I'd also like to hear
> discussion concurring or not the response letter some of which seems
> plausible to me.
> 
> I hope I don't ruffle anyones feathers by my email, but I just thought
> that it should be said.
> 
> Cheers-
> Todd
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CCP4 bulletin board on behalf of Randy J. Read
> Sent: Thu 8/16/2007 8:22 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] The importance of USING our validation tools
> 
> On Aug 16 2007, Eleanor Dodson wrote:
> 
> >The weighting in REFMAC is a function of SigmA ( plotted in log
> file).
> >For this example it will be nearly 1 for all resolutions ranges so
> the
> >weights are pretty constant. There is also a contribution from the
> >"experimental" sigma, which in this case seems to be proportional to
> |F|
> 
> Originally I expected that the publication of our Brief Communication
> in
> Nature would stimulate a lot of discussion on the bulletin board, but
> clearly it hasn't. One reason is probably that we couldn't be as
> forthright
> as we wished to be. For its own good reasons, Nature did not allow us
> to
> use the word "fabricated". Nor were we allowed to discuss other
> structures
> from the same group, if they weren't published in Nature.
> 
-- 
Richard Baxter <[log in to unmask]>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager