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  March 2009

CCP4BB March 2009

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: images

From:

Graeme Winter <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Graeme Winter <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 10:45:51 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (117 lines)

Hi Frank,

I would have assumed that the purpose of the experiment would have
been defined in the publication associated with the deposition - not
to trivialize your point, which is very important, but to put it in
context. I would also assume that the sequence and ligands are as per
the associated PDB deposition. So so far we are quite a way towards
being able to get something useful from this data with what we have
already. The relationship to associated data sets - this is harder,
certainly, but not impossible. In particular, how frequently is it the
case that the measurements from these 15 similar data sets actually
contribute directly to the structure solution? Obviously there is a
process as defined in a lab book, but you could take the stance, at
least in the first instance, that they do not directly contribute if
the same conclusions would be reached in their absence.

Obviously any repository must be more than an FTP site, and must allow
the scientific links between structures and data to be made (for
example including the model used for the successful molecular
replacement.) It does seem clear to me though that we cannot set up
the perfect repository in the first instance, but we do have to start
somewhere.

Perhaps we do not need the right answer, but one which is less wrong
that not making available the data at all?

Just my thoughts on this.

Cheers,

Graeme



2009/3/18 Frank von Delft <[log in to unmask]>:
> Maybe, but images without experimental context (sequence? ligands?
> purification? crystallization format? -- PURPOSE OF EXPERIMENT!?!!
> relationship to the other 15 similar datasets) are as good as no images.
>  And as far as I know, there's no good discussion on the table for that.  At
> least, no-one on the thread mentioned it, so they're probably not thinking
> about it either.
>
> I suppose efforts like PIMS or are a start, and maybe they can even have
> enough information (my feeling is they currently don't).  But that's where
> the discussion should start:  how to index (in sense of annotate) the
> datasets.  The technicalities are just that: technicalities.
>
> Or even closer to home: does ANY detector/beamline write even timestamps
> into the image header...?  Never mind ring current, intensity of the beam,
> size of beam, size of crystal, length of direct beam path, etc etc...
> phx
>
>
>
> Gerard Bricogne wrote:
>>
>> Dear Bernhard,
>>
>>     I suppose you meant "ad nauseam" ;-) .
>>         In any case, what is the use of discussions and recommendations
>> that
>> are not followed by action, and only result in making their contributors
>> themselves nauseated to the point of wanting to "put this to rest"?
>>     As Ethan has nicely stated in his reply to Garib's double-check of
>> whether we do need images, this matter should NOT be put to rest: it
>> should
>> be dealt with. As was argued at the end of the paper by Joosten, Womack et
>> al. (Acta Cryst. D65, 176-185), the main advantage of depositing images
>> would be that it would enable and stimulate the further developement and
>> testing of image integration and data processing software, to the same
>> degree that the deposition of structure factors has stimulated progress
>> and
>> testing for structure refinement software.
>>
>>     Far from a boring issue only capable of giving headaches to Standards
>> Committee members, this is a vital issue: with each undeposited set of
>> images that contributed in one way or another to the determination or
>> refinement of a deposited structure, there disappears an opportunity to
>> test
>> improvements in methods and software that would be likely to improve that
>> deposited entry (and most others) at a future stage. I think we need to
>> take
>> a long view on this, and abandon the picture of the PDB as a static
>> archive
>> of frozen results: instead, it should be seen as a repository of what is
>> required not only to validate/authenticate the deposited models, but to
>> feed
>> the continued improvement of the methods used - and hence, at the next
>> iteration, the constant revision and improvement of those very models. In
>> what way can this topic be a source of nausea?
>>
>>
>>     With best wishes,
>>              Gerard.
>>
>> --
>> On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:16:42AM -0700, Bernhard Rupp wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> As Herb will attest, the need for keeping images and the various reasons
>>> for it have been discussed ad nauseum and agreed upon in various imgCIF
>>> meetings - I am sure Herb or Andy Howard can provide links to the
>>> documents/recommendations, to put this to rest.
>>> Best, BR
>>>
>>> Past ACA Data Standards Committee serf
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kay
>>> Diederichs
>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 10:02 AM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] images
>>>
>>
>>
>

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