If the reviewers are complaining, then one may have to do a better job
in conveying the message. It often helps to add some preemptive
phrases to the text, including references to well respected studies at
similar resolutions where valid conclusions could be drawn. The other
possibility is, of course, that the reviewers are incompetent. In that
case, a discussion with the editor should resolve the issues, unless
the editor is incompetent as well...
Good luck!
Best - MM
On Apr 11, 2008, at 5:04 AM, Jim Naismith wrote:
Dear All,
I have an interesting problem, we have a 3.45A structure of
a membrane protein. We have just been told that the structure is
"too low
resolution to be considered as the uncertainty is too high". We use
the
structure to identify helices which have moved.
Is there a blanket ban on low res structure operating at the moment?
The structure was refined extremely tightly, MolPROB 98th centile.
(I will
happily send the data and structure to anyone who wishes to
validate.) The
editors simply ignored everything but the res limit (I/sI in the
last shell
was 1.8 with a redundancy of 4)
Of course we will begin the usual journal shopping. However, does
anyone
know how to convince editors and non-xtallographers that 3.45A is
valid?
Best
Jim
James H. Naismith FRSE |Research mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
and.ac.uk
Professor of Chemical Biology |Teaching mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Centre for Biomolecular Sciences |Office: 1334-463792
The North Haugh |Fax : 1334-467229
The University |Lab : 1334-467245
St. Andrews |In UK add 0 to start of number
Fife Scotland, U.K., KY16 9ST |http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~strucbio
The University of St Andrews is a charity registered in Scotland : No
SC013532
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
