Dear Cristy,

this is really hilarious. And it just shows how attached
some ppl are to outdated numbers. Against better
knowledge.

It has been shown many times that Rmerge is flawed
at various levels.

The only reason I can see to report it is to be backwards
compatible. But of course, this is a really weak reason.

I would love to see it disappear.

All the best
Manfred

Am 10.06.2021 um 14:25 schrieb Maria Cristina Nonato:
Dear Colleagues
Hope to find you all well and healthy.

I have a question regarding Rmerge. In recent years, we have published our 
crystallographic structures in highly respected journals using CC1/2, 
I/sigma(I), completeness and multiplicity as quality parameters for our 
diffraction data.

Recently this year, We submitted a paper using the same strategy, but one of 
the reviewers asked us to provide the Rmerge, arguing that providing this data 
was compulsory and it was important to estimate radiation damage.

We replied to the editor arguing that Rmerge should not be used as a quality parameter, as 
suggested by more recent literature, such as the article published by Karplus and 
Diederichs (10.1016/j.sbi.2015.07.003). We also argued that there are modern and efficient 
methods to estimate radiation damage ( 
doi.org/10.1107/S1600576718005241<http://doi.org/10.1107/S1600576718005241>; 
doi.org/10.1107/S0907444909040177<http://doi.org/10.1107/S0907444909040177>). It is 
my opinion that an experienced crystallographer can even  monitor radiation damage over the 
course of data processing.

And our paper was rejected !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! due to the fact I did not provide 
Rmerge which I certainly could have done If I found necessary.

Journals like Nature ((https://www.nature.com › documents › 
nr-tables-xray<https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiigtb19uHwAhWS3YUKHSB1AdkQFjABegQIAxAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nature.com%2Fdocuments%2Fnr-tables-xray.doc&usg=AOvVaw1RbfYvNeiEM07FBEOohMig>)
 and even IUCr Journals (https://journals.iucr.org/f/services/structuralcommunications/) still list Rmerge as a data 
to be reported. I always took this as a suggestion since there are people still using Rmerge for data cutoff, but I 
never took this as if Rmerge was a compulsory data to be reported.

I would like to hear the opinion of this community. Should we compulsorily 
report Rmerge?  If so, Why?

Cheers,

Cristy
--
Cristina Nonato
Associate Professor
Laboratório de Cristalografia de Proteínas
Faculdade de Ciências Farmacêuticas de Ribeirão Preto
University of São Paulo



________________________________

To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1


--
Dr. Manfred S. Weiss
Macromolecular Crystallography
Helmholtz-Zentrum Berlin
Albert-Einstein-Str. 15
D-12489 Berlin
Germany

________________________________

Helmholtz-Zentrum Berlin für Materialien und Energie GmbH

Mitglied der Hermann von Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft Deutscher Forschungszentren e.V.

Aufsichtsrat: Vorsitzender Dr. Volkmar Dietz, stv. Vorsitzende Dr. Jutta 
Koch-Unterseher
Geschäftsführung: Prof. Dr. Bernd Rech (Sprecher), Prof. Dr. Jan Lüning, Thomas 
Frederking

Sitz Berlin, AG Charlottenburg, 89 HRB 5583

Postadresse:
Hahn-Meitner-Platz 1
14109 Berlin
Deutschland

########################################################################

To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1

This message was issued to members of www.jiscmail.ac.uk/CCP4BB, a mailing list 
hosted by www.jiscmail.ac.uk, terms & conditions are available at 
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/

Reply via email to