| Quick navigation: | Home | Site Map || References | Biography || Copyright | Other copyright | Contact us | Advert | | |
Re: [ccp4bb] The importance of USING our validation tools |
||
- Protein crystallographyMain steps:- Protein purification- Crystallisation Special:- Programs for crystallography- X-ray detectors Basic tutorials:- Chemistry- Protein - Peptide - Amino Acids Xtal community:- CCP4BB |
CCP4bb navigationCCP4bb <-- 1999 <-- November 1999 <-- 30 November 1999Subject: Re: The importance of USING our validation tools From: Anastassis Perrakis a {- dot -} perrakis {- at -} NKI {- dot -} NL Date: 2007-08-17 On 17 Aug 2007, at 20:51, William Scott wrote: >> To follow the legal analogy, does the letter of Gros et al. proves >> beyond reasonable doubt that the structure in question is indeed a >> fabrication? As you said, it is a compelling case. > > No, I said it "appears" (to me) to be "a compelling case", but I > have only heard one side of it. Have you heard the other? Thats the problem Bill. I have not heard the other side. I am waiting to hear the other side. So far this side has not answered the first and main question: 'can we have the images please'. Tassos PS I dont like single metrics of quality as in the . I did not like the table with 'quality' versus journal, I liked even less the Structural Genomics table. As for the statistics I am not an expert. From what I read in the ActaD paper from Iowa, is that this is rather a 'quality metric' of the crystal ! Not of the structure ! If B is 143, and solvent content 78%, yes the quality metric will be bad, but at the same time you did your best, the structure is the best that you could get. So, the message is that Nature, Cell, Science, SPINE and BCSG deal with difficult structures, and not that they produce 'bad' ones. CCP4bb navigationCCP4bb <-- 1999 <-- November 1999 <-- 30 November 1999 |
|
| ProteinCrystallography.org: Copyright 2006-2010 by Quid United Ltd |