Quick navigation: Home   |    Site Map   ||    References   |    Biography   ||    Copyright   |    Other copyright   |    Contact us   |    Advert   |   
 

Re: [ccp4bb] The importance of USING our validation tools

- Protein crystallography

Main steps:

   - Protein purification
   - Crystallisation

Special:

   - Programs for crystallography
   - X-ray detectors

Basic tutorials:

   - Chemistry
   - Protein
   - Peptide
   - Amino Acids

Xtal community:

   - CCP4BB

CCP4bb navigation

CCP4bb <-- 1999 <-- November 1999 <-- 30 November 1999
Previous message:
Subject: Re: The importance of USING our validation tools
From: Clemens Vonrhein vonrhein {- at -} GLOBALPHASING {- dot -} COM
Date: 2007-08-16
Next message:
Subject: Re: The importance of USING our validation tools
From: Kay Diederichs kay {- dot -} diederichs {- at -} UNI-KONSTANZ {- dot -} DE
Date: 2007-08-16


Subject: Re: The importance of USING our validation tools
From: Ashley Buckle ashley {- dot -} buckle {- at -} MED {- dot -} MONASH {- dot -} EDU {- dot -} AU
Date: 2007-08-16

Validation aside, access to raw data is also helpful for method
development (eg integration and scaling algorithms), on which we all
rely.
Ashley

On 17/08/2007, at 1:04 AM, Santarsiero, Bernard D. wrote:

> Sorry, I think it's a waste of resources to store the raw images. I
> think
> we should trust people to be able to at least process their own
> data set.
> Besides, you would need to include beamline parameters, beam position,
> detector distances, etc. that may or may not be correct in the image
> headers. I'm all for storage and retrieval of a primary intensity data
> file (I or F^2 with esds).
>
> Bernie Santarsiero
>
>
> On Thu, August 16, 2007 9:46 am, Mischa Machius wrote:
>> Hmm - I think I miscalculated, by a factor of 100 even!... need more
>> coffee. In any case, I still think it would be doable. Best - MM
>>
>>
>> On Aug 16, 2007, at 9:30 AM, Mischa Machius wrote:
>>
>>> I don't think archiving images would be that expensive. For one, I
>>> have found that most formats can be compressed quite substantially
>>> using simple, standard procedures like bzip2. If optimized, raw
>>> images won't take up that much space. Also, initially, only those
>>> images that have been used to obtain phases and to refine finally
>>> deposited structures could be archived. If the average structure
>>> takes up 20GB of space, 5,000 structures would be 1TB, which fits
>>> on a single hard drive for less than $400. If the community thinks
>>> this is a worthwhile endeavor, money should be available from
>>> granting agencies to establish a central repository (e.g., at the
>>> RCSB). Imagine what could be done with as little as $50,000. For
>>> large detectors, binning could be used, but giving current hard
>>> drive prices and future developments, that won't be necessary. Best
>>> - MM
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 16, 2007, at 9:13 AM, Phil Evans wrote:
>>>
>>>> What do you count as raw data? Rawest are the images - everything
>>>> beyond that is modellling - but archiving images is _expensive_!
>>>> Unmerged intensities are probably more manageable
>>>>
>>>> Phil
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 16 Aug 2007, at 15:05, Ashley Buckle wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear Randy
>>>>>
>>>>> These are very valid points, and I'm so glad you've taken the
>>>>> important step of initiating this. For now I'd like to respond to
>>>>> one of them, as it concerns something I and colleagues in
>>>>> Australia are doing:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The more information that is available, the easier it will be to
>>>>>> detect fabrication (because it is harder to make up more
>>>>>> information convincingly). For instance, if the diffraction data
>>>>>> are deposited, we can check for consistency with the known
>>>>>> properties of real macromolecular crystals, e.g. that they
>>>>>> contain disordered solvent and not vacuum. As Tassos Perrakis
>>>>>> has discovered, there are characteristic ways in which the
>>>>>> standard deviations depend on the intensities and the
>>>>>> resolution. If unmerged data are deposited, there will probably
>>>>>> be evidence of radiation damage, weak effects from intrinsic
>>>>>> anomalous scatterers, etc. Raw images are probably even harder
>>>>>> to simulate convincingly.
>>>>>
>>>>> After the recent Science retractions we realised that its about
>>>>> time raw data was made available. So, we have set about creating
>>>>> the necessary IT and software to do this for our diffraction
>>>>> data, and are encouraging Australian colleagues to do the same.
>>>>> We are about a week away from launching a web-accessible
>>>>> repository for our recently published (eg deposited in PDB) data,
>>>>> and this should coincide with an upcoming publication describing
>>>>> a new structure from our labs. The aim is that publication occurs
>>>>> simultaneously with release in PDB as well as raw diffraction
>>>>> data on our website. We hope to house as much of our data as
>>>>> possible, as well as data from other Australian labs, but
>>>>> obviously the potential dataset will be huge, so we are trying to
>>>>> develop, and make available freely to the community, software
>>>>> tools that allow others to easily setup their own repositories.
>>>>> After brief discussion with PDB the plan is that PDB include
>>>>> links from coordinates/SF's to the raw data using a simple handle
>>>>> that can be incorporated into a URL. We would hope that we can
>>>>> convince the journals that raw data must be made available at the
>>>>> time of publication, in the same way as coordinates and structure
>>>>> factors. Of course, we realise that there will be many hurdles
>>>>> along the way but we are convinced that simply making the raw
>>>>> data available ASAP is a 'good thing'.
>>>>>
>>>>> We are happy to share more details of our IT plans with the
>>>>> CCP4BB, such that they can be improved, and look forward to
>>>>> hearing feedback
>>>>>
>>>>> cheers
>>>
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> --
>>> ----------
>>> Mischa Machius, PhD
>>> Associate Professor
>>> UT Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas
>>> 5323 Harry Hines Blvd.; ND10.214A
>>> Dallas, TX 75390-8816; U.S.A.
>>> Tel: +1 214 645 6381
>>> Fax: +1 214 645 6353
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ---
>> --------
>> Mischa Machius, PhD
>> Associate Professor
>> UT Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas
>> 5323 Harry Hines Blvd.; ND10.214A
>> Dallas, TX 75390-8816; U.S.A.
>> Tel: +1 214 645 6381
>> Fax: +1 214 645 6353
>>

*NOTE* My new tel. no: (03) 9902 0269

Ashley Buckle Ph.D
NHMRC Senior Research Fellow
The Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
School of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine &
Victorian Bioinformatics Consortium (VBC)
Monash University, Clayton, Vic 3800
Australia

http://www.med.monash.edu.au/biochem/staff/abuckle.html
iChat/AIM: blindcaptaincat
skype: ashley.buckle
Tel: (613) 9902 0269 (office)
Tel: (613) 9905 1653 (lab)

Fax : (613) 9905 4699




CCP4bb navigation

CCP4bb <-- 1999 <-- November 1999 <-- 30 November 1999
Previous message:
Subject: Re: The importance of USING our validation tools
From: Clemens Vonrhein vonrhein {- at -} GLOBALPHASING {- dot -} COM
Date: 2007-08-16
Next message:
Subject: Re: The importance of USING our validation tools
From: Kay Diederichs kay {- dot -} diederichs {- at -} UNI-KONSTANZ {- dot -} DE
Date: 2007-08-16



ProteinCrystallography.org: Copyright 2006-2010 by Quid United Ltd