Clemens,
I have not looked at the structure, but the issues you described are
alarming. It is a little sad because the paper itself seems very
comprehensive and rigorous.
It is great to hear so many voices advocating for depositing raw images.
I hope more researchers will be convinced to do so, especially because
depositing images is very easy these days with services like SbGrid,
proteindiffraction.org (also known as IRRMC), and Zenodo.
Ivan
With best regards,
Ivan Shabalin, Ph.D.
Research Scientist,
Department of Molecular Physiology and Biological Physics,
University of Virginia,
1340 Jefferson Park Avenue, Pinn Hall,Room 4223,
Charlottesville, VA 22908
https://www.linkedin.com/in/shabalinig/
https://minorlab.org/person/ivan_s/
On 8/1/19 05:03, Clemens Vonrhein wrote:
Hi Ivan,
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 05:32:24PM -0400, Ivan Shabalin wrote:
And Rfree of 36% seems really high.
If you look at the maps (e.g. after some re-refinement with your
favourite refinement package) it seems as if there are a few sequence
shifts (around and after A78), some poor density and additional
unmodelled density ... which all add to those high R-values I guess.
But given the poor data quality and no raw images (to check and maybe
improve upon that), I didn't feel the urge to delve into that any
further ;-)
Cheers
Clemens
----
########################################################################
To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1
