This discussion of image deposition and archival has certainly been illuminating. While there have been clear directions on how the process would actually work, I am becoming increasingly curious on why it should be done (outside of threatening non publication, social acceptance, funding, etc). I think a huge challenge is to convince the users that filling out the metadata with as much detail as possible is a worthwhile endeavor.
Specifically, are there documented cases where reinterpretation of an MX dataset (the raw images) has resulted in new biological insight into the system being modeled? If possible I'd like to compile a list (off list) for my own education (though I can certainly report my results to the BB if the interest is there). (Ok I have a selfish reason as well as I will be considering the reanalysis of some really old datasets that proved troublesome for a colleague and am looking for small hints of wisdom) Some that come to mind for me: Meyer et al. Structure of the 12-subunit RNA polymerase II refined with the aid of anomalous diffraction data. J Biol Chem (2009) vol. 284 (19) pp. 12933-9 Wang. Inclusion of weak high-resolution X-ray data for improvement of a group II intron structure. Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr (2010) vol. 66 (Pt 9) pp. 988-1000 F --------------------------------------------- Francis E. Reyes M.Sc. 215 UCB University of Colorado at Boulder
