Dear Gerard, (CC: Qiu-Xing, Carlos-Oscar, Jose-Maria and all others).
Don’t be fooled by all respondents who “*have tried to stay away from these interchanges about resolution*” and are trying to ride the moral high horse on these matters! I fully agree with you that with the current merging of the X-ray crystallography and the cryo-EM structural-biology communities it would be nice if one could “discuss the topic of resolution in a dispassionate way, so as to jointly gain an improved and shared understanding of the matter, without feeling implicitly under pressure to support one side or the other”. I do also understand that you may be a bit shocked by the direct language I used in responding to Jose-Maria and Carlos-Oscar. Rest assured, there is good reason for that as I will try to explain. Both you and I are senior (no offence intended) researchers in structural-biology methodology and, whereas I am a newbie in X-ray crystallography, you are new to cryo-EM. The issues that lead to these “vivid” verbal exchanges precede your entering into cryo-EM field by various decades, and you may not be aware of that history: In 1981 Joachim Frank introduced a “Differential Phase Residual” which I directly recognised as having an erroneous normalisation (a *sum* rather than the *product* of two amplitudes were used). I have introduced the general FRC/FSC metrics (1982/1986) which have now become the accepted “gold-standard” resolution metrics. Frank, in response, published a thousand-and-one reasons why de DPR was better than the FRC/FSC, including that it gave more “conservative” results. Because of this reluctance to admit to an error, I even went to the effort of explicitly correcting the flawed phase residual for them (in ~1987) … To no avail! Frank in ~2010, still not accepting the corrections, published a “remedy” to their flawed DPR normalisation which is plainly hilarious (see our BioRxiv 2017 paper), we nicknamed their “solution” the “elastic-band” resolution metric. We now still see Jose-Maria and Carlos-Oscar spending 5 precious pages on the flawed DPR, fully ignoring the fact that this DPR stuff was binned some 4 decades ago! And that was not even the main point of my earlier response! I was genuinely irritated by their questioning the Hermitian symmetry of the FTs of our 3D maps. They put out statements like that, in a smoke-screen pseudo-mathematical formulation, and expect us to accept their authority on that matter! They previously attacked our (2015) camera-normalisation paper in an equally incoherent way and even lengthy phone calls – that Jose-Maria refers to – did not resolve that issue. Their incoherent statements against our paper remain out there in the literature until today. In contrast, I am pleased to see Qiu-Xing’s response who elaborates on scientifically correct issues: inner products between signal and noise vectors and the central limit theorem, etc. (Qiu-Xing, have you thought about what happens when you are close to the origin in Fourier Space? Have you seen #WhyOWhy #9?). In this day and age, it is very easy to publish rubbish! It remains, however, virtually impossible to remove rubbish from the literature. (See: #WhyOWhy #17 on Twitter @marin_van_heel). Our 2017 BioRxiv paper ( https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/224402v1) is aimed at removing some seriously flawed papers from the literature, above all the Frank & Al-Ali 1975 Nature paper. Nature told us that our BioRxiv paper was not of general interest... It is difficult to convince peers and peer-review journals alike, that the emperor really has no clothes on! More than just two pennies, Marin On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 10:04 AM Jiang,Qiu-Xing <qxji...@ufl.edu> wrote: > Dear all, > I am putting this off the mailing list for discussion. It is interesting > to hear the resolution discussion again. I really appreciate the passion in > sorting this out. > I had a thought about this while studying the property of the Wiener's > filter when in Rockefeller. I would like to submit it here. > > Statistically, the expectation of the inner product of S (signal) and N > (noise) should follow the large number theorem. With a Fourier Shell being > sampled in the reciprocal space, N(k) of observations (without considering > symmetry) is roughly 2 * pi * k^2. With a box size of 200 used in single > particle analysis, N(5) is ~160 at ~40 fold of the pixel size. The zone of > (k = [5,100]) appears in a good area of applying the theorem. > > There are certainly other complicating factors in the calculations that > may narrow it down. I thought that the Central Limit Theorem would justify > this application. If doable, a variation for the calculations of FSC could > be helpful in testing the applicability. Hope that this would add a bit to > the discussion. Please correct me if I am completely off the scope. > > Best, > > Qiu-Xing > Dept. Microbiology & Cell Science, IFAS, UF > > > On 2/23/20, 2:42 PM, "Collaborative Computational Project in Electron > cryo-Microscopy on behalf of Gerard Bricogne" <cc...@jiscmail.ac.uk on > behalf of g...@globalphasing.com> wrote: > > [External Email] > > Gentlemen, > > Please consider for a moment that by such intemperate language and > tone, you are making a topic of fundamental importance to both the MX > and > the EM communities into a no-go area. This cannot be good for anyone's > reputation nor for the two fields in general. It has to be possible to > discuss the topic of "resolution" in a dispassionate way, so as to > jointly > gain an improved and shared understanding of the matter, without > feeling > implicitly under pressure to support one side or the other. An > acrimonious > dispute like this one can only be putting people off getting involved > in the > discussion, which is exactly the opposite of what a thread on a > scientific > bulletin board should be doing. > > > With best wishes, > > Gerard. > > -- > On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 08:15:34AM -0300, Marin van Heel wrote: > > Hi Carlos Oscar and Jose-Maria, > > > > I choose to answer you guys first, because it will take little of my > time > > to counter your criticism and because I have long since been less > than > > amused by your published, ill-conceived criticism: > > > > “*Marin, I always suffer with your reference to sloppy statistics. > If we > > take your paper of 2005 where the 1/2 bit criterion was proposed, > Eqs. 4 to > > 15 have completely ignored the fact that you are dealing with Fourier > > components, that are complex numbers, and consequently you have to > deal > > with random variables that have TWO components, which moreover the > real and > > imaginary part are not independent and, in their turn, they are not > > independent of the nearby Fourier coefficients so that for computing > radial > > averages you would need to account for the correlation among > coefficients*” > > > > I had seen this argumentation against our (2005) paper in your > > manuscript/paper years back. I was so stunned by the level of > > misunderstanding expressed in your manuscript that I chose not to > spend any > > time reacting to those statements. Now that you choose to so openly > display > > your thoughts on the matter, I have no other choice than to spell > out your > > errors in public. > > > > > > > > All complex arrays in our 2005 paper are Hermitian (since they are > the FTs > > of real data), and so are all their inner products. In all the > integrals > > over rings one always averages a complex Fourier-space voxel with its > > Hermitian conjugate yielding *ONE* real value (times two)! Without > that > > Hermitian property, FRCs and FSCs, which are real normalised > correlation > > functions would not even have been possible. I was - and still am - > stunned > > by this level of misunderstanding! > > > > > > > > This is a blatant blunder that you are propagating over years, a > blunder > > that does not do any good to your reputation, yet also a blunder > that has > > probably damaged to our research income. The fact that you can > divulgate > > such rubbish and leave it out there for years for referees to read > (who are > > possibly not as well educated in physics and mathematics) will do – > and may > > already have done – damage to our research. An apology is > appropriate but > > an apology is not enough. > > > > > > > > Maybe you should ask your granting agencies how to transfer 25% of > your > > grant income to our research, in compensation of damages created by > your > > blunder! > > > > > > > > Success with your request! > > > > > > > > Marin > > > > > > > > PS. You have also missed that our 2005 paper explicitly includes the > > influence of the size of the object within the sampling box (your: > “*they > > are not independent of the nearby Fourier coefficients*”). I remain > > flabbergasted. > > > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 3:15 PM Carlos Oscar Sorzano < > c...@cnb.csic.es> > > wrote: > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > I always try to refrain myself from getting into these > discussions, but I > > > cannot resist more the temptation. Here are some more ideas that I > hope > > > bring more light than confusion: > > > > > > - There must be some functional relationship between the FSC and > the SNR, > > > but the exact analytical form of this relationship is unknown (I > suspect > > > that it must be at least monotonic, the worse the SNR, the worse > FSC; but > > > even this is difficult to prove). The relationship we normally use > > > FSC=SNR/(1+SNR) was derived in a context that does not apply to > CryoEM (1D > > > stationary signals in real space; our molecules are not > stationary), and > > > consequently any reasoning of any threshold based on this > relationship is > > > incorrect (see our review). > > > > > > - Still, as long as we all use the same threshold, the reported > > > resolutions are comparable to each other. In that regard, I am > happy that > > > we have set 0.143 (although any other number would have served the > purpose) > > > as the standard. > > > > > > - I totally agree with Steve that the full FSC is much more > informative > > > than its crossing with the threshold. Specially, because we should > be much > > > more worried about its behavior when it has high values than when > it has > > > low values. Before crossing the threshold it should be as high as > possible, > > > and that is the "true measure" of goodness of the map. When it > crosses the > > > threshold of 0.143, it has too low SNR, and by definition, that is > a very > > > unstable part of the FSC, resulting in relatively unstable reports > of > > > resolution. We made some tests about the variability of the FSC > (refining > > > random splits of the dataset), trying to put the error bars that > Steve was > > > asking for, and it turned out to be pretty reproducible (rather low > > > variance except in the region when it crosses the threshold) as > long as the > > > dataset was large enough (which is the current state). > > > > > > - @Marin, I always suffer with your reference to sloppy > statistics. If we > > > take your paper of 2005 where the 1/2 bit criterion was proposed ( > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.sciencedirect.com_science_article_pii_S1047847705001292&d=DwIDaQ&c=sJ6xIWYx-zLMB3EPkvcnVg&r=CtreZZV11Kjskmte_nXfUg&m=j6hRkCCWPpdjRisEaLTAbxGyF56D9slzoXwJuMZj6TA&s=DlbDmyxTMCcT3UlmBDVmcksQSr_fXW62W0comeRG5jc&e= > ), > > > Eqs. 4 to 15 have completely ignored the fact that you are dealing > with > > > Fourier components, that are complex numbers, and consequently you > have to > > > deal with random variables that have two components, which > moreover the > > > real and imaginary part are not independent and, in their turn, > they are > > > not independent of the nearby Fourier coefficients so that for > computing > > > radial averages you would need to account for the correlation among > > > coefficients ( > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.aimspress.com_fileOther_PDF_biophysics_20150102.pdf&d=DwIDaQ&c=sJ6xIWYx-zLMB3EPkvcnVg&r=CtreZZV11Kjskmte_nXfUg&m=j6hRkCCWPpdjRisEaLTAbxGyF56D9slzoXwJuMZj6TA&s=jfE_pGGmfLVlNfmlhBwXTAqVSBEH2XnSFHZxiyCqLug&e= > ). For > > > properly dealing the statistics, at least one needs to carry out a > > > two-dimensional reasoning, including the complex conjugate > multiplication > > > which is all missing in your derivation, rather than treating > everything as > > > one-dimensional, real valued random variables. Additionally, > embedded in > > > your whole reasoning is the idea that the expected value of a > ratio is the > > > ratio of the expected values, that is a 0-th order Taylor > approximation of > > > the mean of the distribution of a ratio between two random > variables. > > > Finally, I always find an extreme difficulty to understand the 1 > bit or 1/2 > > > bit criteria, that is, what is the relationship between the > channel's > > > capacity formula of Shannon ( > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Shannon-25E2-2580-2593Hartley-5Ftheorem&d=DwIDaQ&c=sJ6xIWYx-zLMB3EPkvcnVg&r=CtreZZV11Kjskmte_nXfUg&m=j6hRkCCWPpdjRisEaLTAbxGyF56D9slzoXwJuMZj6TA&s=ol00vkkj5THaa1SlCIi1-LhuBLpxjrFvlreKZdcxufw&e= > ) and our > > > FSC (we do not have any channel through which we are > "transmitting" our > > > volume, although it is true we have a model y=x+n that is the same > as in > > > signal transmission, it is not true that the average information > of a > > > signal is log2(1+SNR); for me, the only relationship is that the > SNR > > > appears in both formulas, FSC and channel capacity, but that does > not > > > automatically make them comparable and interchangeble). This is > not a > > > criticism on your work. I think the FSC is a very useful tool to > measure > > > some properties of the reconstruction process and the quality of > the > > > dataset (not everything is measured by the FSC) and it also has its > > > drawbacks (for instance, systematic errors are rewarded by the FSC > as they > > > are reproducible in both halves). Moreover, I think you are an > extremely > > > intelligent person, who I consider a good friend, with a very good > > > intuition about image processing and who has brought very > interesting ideas > > > and methodologies into the field. Only that we cannot become crazy > about > > > the FSC threshold and the reported resolution, as the most > interesting part > > > of the FSC is not when it is low, but when it is high. > > > > > > I hope I can keep refraining myself in the future :-) > > > > > > Cheers, Carlos Oscar > > > > > > On 2/21/20 6:19 PM, Ludtke, Steven J. wrote: > > > > > > I've been steadfastly refusing to get myself dragged in this time, > but > > > with this very sensible statement (which I am largely in agreement > with), I > > > thought I'd throw in one thought, just to stir the pot a little > more. > > > > > > This is not a new idea, but I think it is the most sensible > strategy I've > > > heard proposed, and addresses Marin's concerns in a more > conventional way. > > > What we are talking about here is the statistical noise present in > the FSC > > > curves themselves. Viewed from the framework of traditional error > analysis > > > and propagation of uncertainties, which pretty much every > scientist should > > > be familiar with since high-school, (and thus would not be > confusing to the > > > non statisticians) the 'correct' solution to this issue is not to > adjust > > > the threshold, but to present FSC curves with error bars. > > > > > > One can then use a fixed threshold at a level based on expectation > values, > > > and simply produce a resolution value which also has an associated > > > uncertainty. This is much better than using a variable threshold > and still > > > producing a single number with no uncertainty estimate! Not only > does this > > > approach account for the statistical noise in the FSC curve, but > it also > > > should stop people from reporting resolutions as 2.3397 Å, as it > would be > > > silly to say 2.3397 +- 0.2. > > > > > > The cross terms are not ignored, but are used in the production of > the > > > error bars. This is a very simple approach, which is certainly > closer to > > > being correct than the fixed threshold without error-bars > approach, and it > > > solves many of the issues we have with resolution reporting people > do. Of > > > course we still have people who will insist that 3.2+-0.2 is > better than > > > 3.3+-0.2, but there isn't much you can do about them... (other > than beat > > > them over the head with a statistics textbook). > > > > > > The caveat, of course, is that like all propagation of uncertainty > that it > > > is a linear approximation, and the correlation axis isn't linear, > so the > > > typical Normal distributions with linear propagation used to > justify > > > propagation of uncertainty aren't _strictly_ true. However, the > > > approximation is fine as long as the error bars are reasonably > small > > > compared to the -1 to 1 range of the correlation axis. Each > individual > > > error bar is computed around its expectation value, so the overall > > > nonlinearity of the correlation isn't a concern. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Steven Ludtke, Ph.D. <slud...@bcm.edu> Baylor > > > College of Medicine > > > Charles C. Bell Jr., Professor of Structural Biology > > > Dept. of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology ( > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.bcm.edu_biochem&d=DwIDaQ&c=sJ6xIWYx-zLMB3EPkvcnVg&r=CtreZZV11Kjskmte_nXfUg&m=j6hRkCCWPpdjRisEaLTAbxGyF56D9slzoXwJuMZj6TA&s=6KOWpbi5ThELOdJUK384kKMmxqDeOnZJJEUbfgx52OI&e= > ) > > > Academic Director, CryoEM Core > ( > > > cryoem.bcm.edu) > > > Co-Director CIBR Center ( > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.bcm.edu_research_cibr&d=DwIDaQ&c=sJ6xIWYx-zLMB3EPkvcnVg&r=CtreZZV11Kjskmte_nXfUg&m=j6hRkCCWPpdjRisEaLTAbxGyF56D9slzoXwJuMZj6TA&s=BL1XZh2Op32QixrenpbaeIqobWAy0k_asD7bCjoOTFc&e= > ) > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 21, 2020, at 10:34 AM, Alexis Rohou <a.ro...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > ****CAUTION:*** This email is not from a BCM Source. Only click > links or > > > open attachments you know are safe.* > > > ------------------------------ > > > Hi all, > > > > > > For those bewildered by Marin's insistence that everyone's been > messing up > > > their stats since the bronze age, I'd like to offer what my > understanding > > > of the situation. More details in this thread from a few years ago > on the > > > exact same topic: > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mail.ncmir.ucsd.edu_pipermail_3dem_2015-2DAugust_003939.html&d=DwIDaQ&c=sJ6xIWYx-zLMB3EPkvcnVg&r=CtreZZV11Kjskmte_nXfUg&m=j6hRkCCWPpdjRisEaLTAbxGyF56D9slzoXwJuMZj6TA&s=m7ayURBE1-8iccf-3LWUDbTqGCfSjPjJbP-Kpmmb_Lo&e= > > > < > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mail.ncmir.ucsd.edu_pipermail_3dem_2015-2DAugust_003939.html&d=DwMFaQ&c=ZQs-KZ8oxEw0p81sqgiaRA&r=Dk5VoQQ-wINYVssLMZihyC5Dj_sWYKxCyKz9E4Lp3gc&m=UWn2RUCMENrXjn3JLSwlIU6Zmp_JYnRrXesjtsM1u2E&s=CZ3YcAV1LVKXsLT0KjCIRby6j3XPA6GqZcOVP3nMyK0&e= > > > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mail.ncmir.ucsd.edu_pipermail_3dem_2015-2DAugust_003944.html&d=DwIDaQ&c=sJ6xIWYx-zLMB3EPkvcnVg&r=CtreZZV11Kjskmte_nXfUg&m=j6hRkCCWPpdjRisEaLTAbxGyF56D9slzoXwJuMZj6TA&s=P96CzYrwLWuCc6g8ZMHMyn8XdqCiXn_OQkDuoqI2K2s&e= > > > < > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mail.ncmir.ucsd.edu_pipermail_3dem_2015-2DAugust_003944.html&d=DwMFaQ&c=ZQs-KZ8oxEw0p81sqgiaRA&r=Dk5VoQQ-wINYVssLMZihyC5Dj_sWYKxCyKz9E4Lp3gc&m=UWn2RUCMENrXjn3JLSwlIU6Zmp_JYnRrXesjtsM1u2E&s=oG6lGnei74jC5VVGsfFAdiTpIxrZhs_IH2mH0re5QRM&e= > > > > > > > > Notwithstanding notational problems (e.g. strict equations as > opposed to > > > approximation symbols, or omission of symbols to denote > estimation), I > > > believe Frank & Al-Ali and "descendent" papers (e.g. appendix of > Rosenthal > > > & Henderson 2003) are fine. The cross terms that Marin is agitated > about > > > indeed do in fact have an expectation value of 0.0 (in the > ensemble; if the > > > experiment were performed an infinite number of times with > different > > > realizations of noise). I don't believe Pawel or Jose Maria or any > of the > > > other authors really believe that the cross-terms are orthogonal. > > > > > > When N (the number of independent Fouier voxels in a shell) is > large > > > enough, mean(Signal x Noise) ~ 0.0 is only an approximation, but a > pretty > > > good one, even for a single FSC experiment. This is why, in my > book, > > > derivations that depend on Frank & Al-Ali are OK, under the strict > > > assumption that N is large. Numerically, this becomes apparent > when Marin's > > > half-bit criterion is plotted - asymptotically it has the same > behavior as > > > a constant threshold. > > > > > > So, is Marin wrong to worry about this? No, I don't think so. > There are > > > indeed cases where the assumption of large N is broken. And under > those > > > circumstances, any fixed threshold (0.143, 0.5, whatever) is > dangerous. > > > This is illustrated in figures of van Heel & Schatz (2005). Small > boxes, > > > high-symmetry, small objects in large boxes, and a number of other > > > conditions can make fixed thresholds dangerous. > > > > > > It would indeed be better to use a non-fixed threshold. So why am > I not > > > using the 1/2-bit criterion in my own work? While numerically it > behaves > > > well at most resolution ranges, I was not convinced by Marin's > derivation > > > in 2005. Philosophically though, I think he's right - we should > aim for FSC > > > thresholds that are more robust to the kinds of edge cases > mentioned above. > > > It would be the right thing to do. > > > > > > Hope this helps, > > > Alexis > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 9:00 AM Penczek, Pawel A < > > > pawel.a.penc...@uth.tmc.edu> wrote: > > > > > >> Marin, > > >> > > >> The statistics in 2010 review is fine. You may disagree with > assumptions, > > >> but I can assure you the “statistics” (as you call it) is fine. > Careful > > >> reading of the paper would reveal to you this much. > > >> > > >> Regards, > > >> Pawel > > >> > > >> On Feb 16, 2020, at 10:38 AM, Marin van Heel < > > >> marin.vanh...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> ***** EXTERNAL EMAIL ***** > > >> Dear Pawel and All others .... > > >> > > >> This 2010 review is - unfortunately - largely based on the flawed > > >> statistics I mentioned before, namely on the a priori assumption > that the > > >> inner product of a signal vector and a noise vector are ZERO (an > > >> orthogonality assumption). The (Frank & Al-Ali 1975) paper we > have refuted > > >> on a number of occasions (for example in 2005, and most recently > in our > > >> BioRxiv paper) but you still take that as the correct relation > between SNR > > >> and FRC (and you never cite the criticism...). > > >> Sorry > > >> Marin > > >> > > >> On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 10:42 AM Penczek, Pawel A < > > >> pawel.a.penc...@uth.tmc.edu> wrote: > > >> > > >>> Dear Teige, > > >>> > > >>> I am wondering whether you are familiar with > > >>> > > >>> Resolution measures in molecular electron microscopy. > > >>> Penczek PA. Methods Enzymol. 2010. > > >>> Citation > > >>> > > >>> Methods Enzymol. 2010;482:73-100. doi: > 10.1016/S0076-6879(10)82003-8. > > >>> > > >>> You will find there answers to all questions you asked and much > more. > > >>> > > >>> Regards, > > >>> Pawel Penczek > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Regards, > > >>> Pawel > > >>> _______________________________________________ > > >>> 3dem mailing list > > >>> 3...@ncmir.ucsd.edu > > >>> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mail.ncmir.ucsd.edu_mailman_listinfo_3dem&d=DwIDaQ&c=sJ6xIWYx-zLMB3EPkvcnVg&r=CtreZZV11Kjskmte_nXfUg&m=j6hRkCCWPpdjRisEaLTAbxGyF56D9slzoXwJuMZj6TA&s=jlf-yG22sGDCcH9DaGYTmHJzaz1jdmrDHOR85XABrQk&e= > > >>> < > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mail.ncmir.ucsd.edu_mailman_listinfo_3dem&d=DwMFaQ&c=bKRySV-ouEg_AT-w2QWsTdd9X__KYh9Eq2fdmQDVZgw&r=yEYHb4SF2vvMq3W-iluu41LlHcFadz4Ekzr3_bT4-qI&m=3-TZcohYbZGHCQ7azF9_fgEJmssbBksaI7ESb0VIk1Y&s=XHMq9Q6Zwa69NL8kzFbmaLmZA9M33U01tBE6iAtQ140&e= > > > > >>> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> 3dem mailing list > > >> 3...@ncmir.ucsd.edu > > >> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mail.ncmir.ucsd.edu_mailman_listinfo_3dem&d=DwIDaQ&c=sJ6xIWYx-zLMB3EPkvcnVg&r=CtreZZV11Kjskmte_nXfUg&m=j6hRkCCWPpdjRisEaLTAbxGyF56D9slzoXwJuMZj6TA&s=jlf-yG22sGDCcH9DaGYTmHJzaz1jdmrDHOR85XABrQk&e= > > >> < > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mail.ncmir.ucsd.edu_mailman_listinfo_3dem&d=DwMFaQ&c=ZQs-KZ8oxEw0p81sqgiaRA&r=Dk5VoQQ-wINYVssLMZihyC5Dj_sWYKxCyKz9E4Lp3gc&m=UWn2RUCMENrXjn3JLSwlIU6Zmp_JYnRrXesjtsM1u2E&s=TeEhUNYC5v59HGWMrPQCMaGK5opuX-NIG2mJvGLuiKA&e= > > > > >> > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 3dem mailing list > > > 3...@ncmir.ucsd.edu > > > > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mail.ncmir.ucsd.edu_mailman_listinfo_3dem&d=DwICAg&c=ZQs-KZ8oxEw0p81sqgiaRA&r=Dk5VoQQ-wINYVssLMZihyC5Dj_sWYKxCyKz9E4Lp3gc&m=UWn2RUCMENrXjn3JLSwlIU6Zmp_JYnRrXesjtsM1u2E&s=TeEhUNYC5v59HGWMrPQCMaGK5opuX-NIG2mJvGLuiKA&e= > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 3dem mailing list3...@ncmir.ucsd.eduhttps:// > mail.ncmir.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/3dem > > > > > > > > > > > ######################################################################## > > > > To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link: > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.jiscmail.ac.uk_cgi-2Dbin_webadmin-3FSUBED1-3DCCP4BB-26A-3D1&d=DwIDaQ&c=sJ6xIWYx-zLMB3EPkvcnVg&r=CtreZZV11Kjskmte_nXfUg&m=j6hRkCCWPpdjRisEaLTAbxGyF56D9slzoXwJuMZj6TA&s=HXwMxgMGIGEC-jDZYVyolXJ69Eq1hrQ_8Jrimf0Hn0c&e= > > > ######################################################################## > > To unsubscribe from the CCPEM list, click the following link: > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.jiscmail.ac.uk_cgi-2Dbin_webadmin-3FSUBED1-3DCCPEM-26A-3D1&d=DwIDaQ&c=sJ6xIWYx-zLMB3EPkvcnVg&r=CtreZZV11Kjskmte_nXfUg&m=j6hRkCCWPpdjRisEaLTAbxGyF56D9slzoXwJuMZj6TA&s=0AMniD7m8VBbjRqqHs8QMH0fnUN98WUhd3AlrcBjzAI&e= > > > ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1
