Re: [ccp4bb] The importance of USING our validation tools
it is still very bad, but at least it would mean there was some experimental evidence for the model and it was not completely made up. Mark Mark J. van Raaij Unidad de Bioquímica Estructural Dpto de Bioquímica, Facultad de Farmacia and Unidad de Rayos X, Edificio CACTUS Universidad de Santiago 15782 Santiago de Compostela Spain http://web.usc.es/~vanraaij/ On 17 Aug 2007, at 17:53, Manfred S. Weiss wrote: how about this scenario: the structure really is as published, or very like it, but upon refinement, R-factors were high, other indicators were dodgy etc. so the authors were afraid to publish as is and made up a dataset to support their structure - this would be a bit less bad. pardon me. you can't seriously mean what you just wrote. maybe somebody ought to be checking your structures ... ;-) Manfred. * * *Dr. Manfred S. Weiss * * * * Team Leader * * * * EMBL Hamburg OutstationFon: +49-40-89902-170 * * c/o DESY, Notkestr. 85 Fax: +49-40-89902-149 * * D-22603 Hamburg Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * GERMANY Web: www.embl-hamburg.de/~msweiss/ * * *
Re: [ccp4bb] The importance of USING our validation tools
There are good reasons for preserving frames, but most of all for the crystals that appeared to diffract but did not lead to a successful structure solution, publication, and PDB deposition. Maybe in the future there will be improved data processing software (for example to integrate non-merohedral twins) that will enable good structures to be obtained from such data. At the moment most such data is thrown away. However, forcing everyone to deposit their frames each time they deposit a structure with the PDB would be a thorough nuisance and major logistic hassle. It is also a complete illusion to believe that the reviewers for Nature etc. would process or even look at frames, even if they could download them with the manuscript. For small molecules, many journals require an 'ORTEP plot' to be submitted with the paper. As older readers who have experienced Dick Harlow's 'ORTEP of the year' competition at ACA Meetings will remember, even a viewer with little experience of small-molecule crystallography can see from the ORTEP plot within seconds if something is seriously wrong, and many non-crystallographic referees for e.g. the journal Inorganic Chemistry can even make a good guess as to what is wrong (e.g wrong element assigned to an atom). It would be nice if we could find something similar for macromolecules that the author would have to submit with the paper. One immediate bonus is that the authors would look at it carefully themselves before submitting, which could lead to an improvement of the quality of structures being submitted. My suggestion is that the wwPDB might provide say a one-page diagnostic summary when they allocate each PDB ID that could be used for this purpose. A good first pass at this would be the output that the MolProbity server http://molprobity.biochem.duke.edu/ sends when is given a PDB file. It starts with a few lines of summary in which bad things are marked red and the structure is assigned to a pecentile: a percentile of 6% means that 93% of the sturcture in the PDB with a similar resolution are 'better' and 5% are 'worse'. This summary can be understood with very little crystallographic background and a similar summary can of course be produced for NMR structures. The summary is followed by diagnostics for each residue, normally if the summary looks good it would not be necessary for the editor or referee to look at the rest. Although this server was intended to help us to improve our structures rather than detect manipulated or fabricated data, I asked it for a report on 2HR0 to see what it would do (probably many other people were trying to do exactly the same, the server was slower than usual). Although the structure got poor marks on most tests, MolProbity generously assigned it overall to the 6th pecentile, I suppose that this is about par for structures submitted to Nature (!). However there was one feature that was unlike anything I have ever seen before although I have fed the MolProbity server with some pretty ropey PDB files in the past: EVERY residue, including EVERY WATER molecule, made either at least one bad contact or was a Ramachandran outlier or was a rotamer outlier (or more than one of these). This surely would ring all the alarm bells! So I would suggest that the wwPDB could coordinate, with the help of the validation experts, software to produce a short summary report that would be automatically provided in the same email that allocates the PDB ID. This email could make the strong recommendation that the report file be submitted with the publication, and maybe in the fullness of time even the Editors of high profile journals would require this report for the referees (or even read it themselves!). To gain acceptance for such a procedure the report would have to be short and comprehensible to non-crystallographers; the MolProbity summary is an excellent first pass in this respect, but (partially with a view to detecting manipulation of the data) a couple of tests could be added based on the data statistics as reported in the PDB file or even better the reflection data if submitted). Most of the necessary software already exists, much of it produced by regular readers of this bb, it just needs to be adapted so that the results can be digested by referees and editors with little or no crystallographic experience. And most important, a PDB ID should always be released only in combination with such a summary. George Prof. George M. Sheldrick FRS Dept. Structural Chemistry, University of Goettingen, Tammannstr. 4, D37077 Goettingen, Germany Tel. +49-551-39-3021 or -3068 Fax. +49-551-39-2582
Re: [ccp4bb] The importance of USING our validation tools
I wholeheartedly agree with George! A single-page summary of any given PDBID, with some of the less obvious warnings/error codes explained at the bottom, would speak volumes to almost any reviewer - and as George pointed out it's very unlikely that reviewers will bother to look at diffraction images, doubly so since (I think) many if not most of people who review the 'hot' papers are not actually crystallographers themselves. This is easy to expect given the fact that the 'high-impact' papers nowadays are generally judged by their merit to the field of biological research, therefore people who review them (at least in theory) are more likely to be biologists. Statistically speaking this seems to make sense as well, since there are a few thousand crystallographers in the world as compared to a few hundred thousand of biologists. Sorry for making this incredibly long thread even longer. Artem -Original Message- From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George M. Sheldrick Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2007 9:27 AM To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] The importance of USING our validation tools There are good reasons for preserving frames, but most of all for the crystals that appeared to diffract but did not lead to a successful structure solution, publication, and PDB deposition. Maybe in the future there will be improved data processing software (for example to integrate non-merohedral twins) that will enable good structures to be obtained from such data. At the moment most such data is thrown away. However, forcing everyone to deposit their frames each time they deposit a structure with the PDB would be a thorough nuisance and major logistic hassle. It is also a complete illusion to believe that the reviewers for Nature etc. would process or even look at frames, even if they could download them with the manuscript. For small molecules, many journals require an 'ORTEP plot' to be submitted with the paper. As older readers who have experienced Dick Harlow's 'ORTEP of the year' competition at ACA Meetings will remember, even a viewer with little experience of small-molecule crystallography can see from the ORTEP plot within seconds if something is seriously wrong, and many non-crystallographic referees for e.g. the journal Inorganic Chemistry can even make a good guess as to what is wrong (e.g wrong element assigned to an atom). It would be nice if we could find something similar for macromolecules that the author would have to submit with the paper. One immediate bonus is that the authors would look at it carefully themselves before submitting, which could lead to an improvement of the quality of structures being submitted. My suggestion is that the wwPDB might provide say a one-page diagnostic summary when they allocate each PDB ID that could be used for this purpose. A good first pass at this would be the output that the MolProbity server http://molprobity.biochem.duke.edu/ sends when is given a PDB file. It starts with a few lines of summary in which bad things are marked red and the structure is assigned to a pecentile: a percentile of 6% means that 93% of the sturcture in the PDB with a similar resolution are 'better' and 5% are 'worse'. This summary can be understood with very little crystallographic background and a similar summary can of course be produced for NMR structures. The summary is followed by diagnostics for each residue, normally if the summary looks good it would not be necessary for the editor or referee to look at the rest. Although this server was intended to help us to improve our structures rather than detect manipulated or fabricated data, I asked it for a report on 2HR0 to see what it would do (probably many other people were trying to do exactly the same, the server was slower than usual). Although the structure got poor marks on most tests, MolProbity generously assigned it overall to the 6th pecentile, I suppose that this is about par for structures submitted to Nature (!). However there was one feature that was unlike anything I have ever seen before although I have fed the MolProbity server with some pretty ropey PDB files in the past: EVERY residue, including EVERY WATER molecule, made either at least one bad contact or was a Ramachandran outlier or was a rotamer outlier (or more than one of these). This surely would ring all the alarm bells! So I would suggest that the wwPDB could coordinate, with the help of the validation experts, software to produce a short summary report that would be automatically provided in the same email that allocates the PDB ID. This email could make the strong recommendation that the report file be submitted with the publication, and maybe in the fullness of time even the Editors of high profile journals would require this report for the referees (or even read it themselves!). To gain acceptance for such a procedure the report would have to be sho
Re: [ccp4bb] The importance of USING our validation tools
I agree. However, I am personally not so much worried about entire protein structures being wrong or fabricated. I am much more worried about co-crystal structures. Capturing a binding partner, a reaction intermediate or a substrate in an active site is often as spectacular an achievement as determining a novel membrane protein structure. The threshold for over-interpreting densities for ligands is rather low, and wishful thinking can turn into model bias much more easily than for a protein structure alone; not to mention making honest mistakes. Just for plain and basic scientific purposes, it would be helpful every now and then to have access to the orginal images. As to the matter of fabricating ligand densities, I surmise, that is much easier than fabricating entire protein structures. The potential rewards (in terms of high-profile publications and obtaining grants) are just as high. There is enough incentive to apply lax scientific standards. If a simple means exists, beyond what is available today, that can help tremendously in identifying honest mistakes, and perhaps a rare fabrication, I think it should seriously be considered. Best - MM On Sat, 18 Aug 2007, George M. Sheldrick wrote: > There are good reasons for preserving frames, but most of all for the > crystals that appeared to diffract but did not lead to a successful > structure solution, publication, and PDB deposition. Maybe in the future > there will be improved data processing software (for example to integrate > non-merohedral twins) that will enable good structures to be obtained from > such data. At the moment most such data is thrown away. However, forcing > everyone to deposit their frames each time they deposit a structure with > the PDB would be a thorough nuisance and major logistic hassle. > > It is also a complete illusion to believe that the reviewers for Nature > etc. would process or even look at frames, even if they could download > them with the manuscript. > > For small molecules, many journals require an 'ORTEP plot' to be submitted > with the paper. As older readers who have experienced Dick Harlow's 'ORTEP > of the year' competition at ACA Meetings will remember, even a viewer > with little experience of small-molecule crystallography can see from the > ORTEP plot within seconds if something is seriously wrong, and many > non-crystallographic referees for e.g. the journal Inorganic Chemistry > can even make a good guess as to what is wrong (e.g wrong element assigned > to an atom). It would be nice if we could find something similar for > macromolecules that the author would have to submit with the paper. One > immediate bonus is that the authors would look at it carefully > themselves before submitting, which could lead to an improvement of the > quality of structures being submitted. My suggestion is that the wwPDB > might provide say a one-page diagnostic summary when they allocate each > PDB ID that could be used for this purpose. > > A good first pass at this would be the output that the MolProbity server > http://molprobity.biochem.duke.edu/ sends when is given a PDB file. It > starts with a few lines of summary in which bad things are marked red > and the structure is assigned to a pecentile: a percentile of 6% means > that 93% of the sturcture in the PDB with a similar resolution are > 'better' and 5% are 'worse'. This summary can be understood with very > little crystallographic background and a similar summary can > of course be produced for NMR structures. The summary is followed by > diagnostics for each residue, normally if the summary looks good it > would not be necessary for the editor or referee to look at the rest. > > Although this server was intended to help us to improve our structures > rather than detect manipulated or fabricated data, I asked it for a > report on 2HR0 to see what it would do (probably many other people were > trying to do exactly the same, the server was slower than usual). > Although the structure got poor marks on most tests, MolProbity > generously assigned it overall to the 6th pecentile, I suppose that > this is about par for structures submitted to Nature (!). However there > was one feature that was unlike anything I have ever seen before > although I have fed the MolProbity server with some pretty ropey PDB > files in the past: EVERY residue, including EVERY WATER molecule, made > either at least one bad contact or was a Ramachandran outlier or was a > rotamer outlier (or more than one of these). This surely would ring > all the alarm bells! > > So I would suggest that the wwPDB could coordinate, with the help of the > validation experts, software to produce a short summary report that > would be automatically provided in the same email that allocates the PDB > ID. This email could make the strong recommendation that the report file > be submitted with the publication, and maybe in the f
Re: [ccp4bb] The importance of USING our validation tools
Hi Mischa, I think you are right with ligand structures and it would be very difficult if not impossible to distinguish between real measured data and faked data. You just need to run a docking program dock the ligand calculate new structure factors add some noise and combine that with your real data of the unliganded structure. I'm not an expert, but how would one be able to detect say a molecule which is in the order of 300-600 Da within an average protein of perhaps 40 kDa if it's true data or faked + noise ? In Germany we have to keep data (data meaning everything, from clones, scans of gels, sizing profiles to xray diffraction images etc.) for 10 years. Not sure how this is in US. Juergen Mischa Machius wrote: I agree. However, I am personally not so much worried about entire protein structures being wrong or fabricated. I am much more worried about co-crystal structures. Capturing a binding partner, a reaction intermediate or a substrate in an active site is often as spectacular an achievement as determining a novel membrane protein structure. The threshold for over-interpreting densities for ligands is rather low, and wishful thinking can turn into model bias much more easily than for a protein structure alone; not to mention making honest mistakes. Just for plain and basic scientific purposes, it would be helpful every now and then to have access to the orginal images. As to the matter of fabricating ligand densities, I surmise, that is much easier than fabricating entire protein structures. The potential rewards (in terms of high-profile publications and obtaining grants) are just as high. There is enough incentive to apply lax scientific standards. If a simple means exists, beyond what is available today, that can help tremendously in identifying honest mistakes, and perhaps a rare fabrication, I think it should seriously be considered. Best - MM On Sat, 18 Aug 2007, George M. Sheldrick wrote: There are good reasons for preserving frames, but most of all for the crystals that appeared to diffract but did not lead to a successful structure solution, publication, and PDB deposition. Maybe in the future there will be improved data processing software (for example to integrate non-merohedral twins) that will enable good structures to be obtained from such data. At the moment most such data is thrown away. However, forcing everyone to deposit their frames each time they deposit a structure with the PDB would be a thorough nuisance and major logistic hassle. It is also a complete illusion to believe that the reviewers for Nature etc. would process or even look at frames, even if they could download them with the manuscript. For small molecules, many journals require an 'ORTEP plot' to be submitted with the paper. As older readers who have experienced Dick Harlow's 'ORTEP of the year' competition at ACA Meetings will remember, even a viewer with little experience of small-molecule crystallography can see from the ORTEP plot within seconds if something is seriously wrong, and many non-crystallographic referees for e.g. the journal Inorganic Chemistry can even make a good guess as to what is wrong (e.g wrong element assigned to an atom). It would be nice if we could find something similar for macromolecules that the author would have to submit with the paper. One immediate bonus is that the authors would look at it carefully themselves before submitting, which could lead to an improvement of the quality of structures being submitted. My suggestion is that the wwPDB might provide say a one-page diagnostic summary when they allocate each PDB ID that could be used for this purpose. A good first pass at this would be the output that the MolProbity server http://molprobity.biochem.duke.edu/ sends when is given a PDB file. It starts with a few lines of summary in which bad things are marked red and the structure is assigned to a pecentile: a percentile of 6% means that 93% of the sturcture in the PDB with a similar resolution are 'better' and 5% are 'worse'. This summary can be understood with very little crystallographic background and a similar summary can of course be produced for NMR structures. The summary is followed by diagnostics for each residue, normally if the summary looks good it would not be necessary for the editor or referee to look at the rest. Although this server was intended to help us to improve our structures rather than detect manipulated or fabricated data, I asked it for a report on 2HR0 to see what it would do (probably many other people were trying to do exactly the same, the server was slower than usual). Although the structure got poor marks on most tests, MolProbity generously assigned it overall to the 6th pecentile, I suppose that this is about par for structures submitted to Nature (!). However there was one feature that was unlike anything I have ever seen before although I have fed t
Re: [ccp4bb] The importance of USING our validation tools
To complete your analogy to the "ORTEP of the year", the summary page could be accompanied by a backbone ribbon drawing of the macromolecule, with a red sphere at each residue that has an error. You could get fancy and scale the sphere according to the severity of the error. -Tom -Original Message- From: CCP4 bulletin board on behalf of George M. Sheldrick Sent: Sat 8/18/2007 6:26 AM To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] The importance of USING our validation tools There are good reasons for preserving frames, but most of all for the crystals that appeared to diffract but did not lead to a successful structure solution, publication, and PDB deposition. Maybe in the future there will be improved data processing software (for example to integrate non-merohedral twins) that will enable good structures to be obtained from such data. At the moment most such data is thrown away. However, forcing everyone to deposit their frames each time they deposit a structure with the PDB would be a thorough nuisance and major logistic hassle. It is also a complete illusion to believe that the reviewers for Nature etc. would process or even look at frames, even if they could download them with the manuscript. For small molecules, many journals require an 'ORTEP plot' to be submitted with the paper. As older readers who have experienced Dick Harlow's 'ORTEP of the year' competition at ACA Meetings will remember, even a viewer with little experience of small-molecule crystallography can see from the ORTEP plot within seconds if something is seriously wrong, and many non-crystallographic referees for e.g. the journal Inorganic Chemistry can even make a good guess as to what is wrong (e.g wrong element assigned to an atom). It would be nice if we could find something similar for macromolecules that the author would have to submit with the paper. One immediate bonus is that the authors would look at it carefully themselves before submitting, which could lead to an improvement of the quality of structures being submitted. My suggestion is that the wwPDB might provide say a one-page diagnostic summary when they allocate each PDB ID that could be used for this purpose. A good first pass at this would be the output that the MolProbity server http://molprobity.biochem.duke.edu/ sends when is given a PDB file. It starts with a few lines of summary in which bad things are marked red and the structure is assigned to a pecentile: a percentile of 6% means that 93% of the sturcture in the PDB with a similar resolution are 'better' and 5% are 'worse'. This summary can be understood with very little crystallographic background and a similar summary can of course be produced for NMR structures. The summary is followed by diagnostics for each residue, normally if the summary looks good it would not be necessary for the editor or referee to look at the rest. Although this server was intended to help us to improve our structures rather than detect manipulated or fabricated data, I asked it for a report on 2HR0 to see what it would do (probably many other people were trying to do exactly the same, the server was slower than usual). Although the structure got poor marks on most tests, MolProbity generously assigned it overall to the 6th pecentile, I suppose that this is about par for structures submitted to Nature (!). However there was one feature that was unlike anything I have ever seen before although I have fed the MolProbity server with some pretty ropey PDB files in the past: EVERY residue, including EVERY WATER molecule, made either at least one bad contact or was a Ramachandran outlier or was a rotamer outlier (or more than one of these). This surely would ring all the alarm bells! So I would suggest that the wwPDB could coordinate, with the help of the validation experts, software to produce a short summary report that would be automatically provided in the same email that allocates the PDB ID. This email could make the strong recommendation that the report file be submitted with the publication, and maybe in the fullness of time even the Editors of high profile journals would require this report for the referees (or even read it themselves!). To gain acceptance for such a procedure the report would have to be short and comprehensible to non-crystallographers; the MolProbity summary is an excellent first pass in this respect, but (partially with a view to detecting manipulation of the data) a couple of tests could be added based on the data statistics as reported in the PDB file or even better the reflection data if submitted). Most of the necessary software already exists, much of it produced by regular readers of this bb, it just needs to be adapted so that the results can be digested by referees and editors with little or no crystallographic experience. And most important, a PDB ID should always be released only in combination with such a su
Re: [ccp4bb] The importance of USING our validation tools
The literature already contains quite a few papers discussing ligand-protein interactions derived from low-resolution data, noisy data, etc. It's relatively easy to take a low-quality map; dock the molecule willy-nilly into the poorly defined 'blobule' of density, and derive spectacular conclusions. However, in order for such conclusions to be credible one needs to support them with orthogonal data such as biological assay results, mutagenesis, etc. This is not limited to crystallography as such, and it's the referee's job to be thorough in such cases. To the author's credit, in *most* cases the questionable crystallographic data is supported by biological data of high quality. So, even with the images, etc. - it's still quite possible to be honestly mislead. Which is why we value biological data. Consequently, if one's conclusions are wrong - this will inevitably show up later in the results of other experiments (such as SAR inconsistencies for example). Science tends to be self-correcting - our errors (whether honest or malicious) are not going to withstand the test of time. Assuming that the proportion of deliberate faking in scientific literature is quite small (and we really have no reason to think otherwise!), I really see no reason to worry too much about the ligand-protein interactions. Any referee evaluating ligand-based structural papers can ask to see an omit map (or a difference density map before any ligand was built) and a decent biological data set supporting the structural conclusions. In the case of *sophisticated deliberate faking*, there is not much a reviewer can do except trying to actually reproduce the claimed results. On the other hand, the 'wholesale' errors can be harder to catch, since the dataset and the resulting structure are typically the *only* evidence available. If both are suspect, the reviewer needs to rely on something else to make a judgement, which is where a one-page summary would come handy. Artem -Original Message- From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Juergen Bosch Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2007 12:20 PM To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] The importance of USING our validation tools Hi Mischa, I think you are right with ligand structures and it would be very difficult if not impossible to distinguish between real measured data and faked data. You just need to run a docking program dock the ligand calculate new structure factors add some noise and combine that with your real data of the unliganded structure. I'm not an expert, but how would one be able to detect say a molecule which is in the order of 300-600 Da within an average protein of perhaps 40 kDa if it's true data or faked + noise ? In Germany we have to keep data (data meaning everything, from clones, scans of gels, sizing profiles to xray diffraction images etc.) for 10 years. Not sure how this is in US. Juergen Mischa Machius wrote: >I agree. However, I am personally not so much worried about entire protein >structures being wrong or fabricated. I am much more worried about >co-crystal structures. Capturing a binding partner, a reaction >intermediate or a substrate in an active site is often as spectacular an >achievement as determining a novel membrane protein structure. The >threshold for over-interpreting densities for ligands is rather low, and >wishful thinking can turn into model bias much more easily than for a >protein structure alone; not to mention making honest mistakes. > >Just for plain and basic scientific purposes, it would be helpful every >now and then to have access to the orginal images. > >As to the matter of fabricating ligand densities, I surmise, that is much >easier than fabricating entire protein structures. The potential rewards >(in terms of high-profile publications and obtaining grants) are just as >high. There is enough incentive to apply lax scientific standards. > >If a simple means exists, beyond what is available today, that can help >tremendously in identifying honest mistakes, and perhaps a rare >fabrication, I think it should seriously be considered. > >Best - MM > > > > >On Sat, 18 Aug 2007, George M. Sheldrick wrote: > > > >>There are good reasons for preserving frames, but most of all for the >>crystals that appeared to diffract but did not lead to a successful >>structure solution, publication, and PDB deposition. Maybe in the future >>there will be improved data processing software (for example to integrate >>non-merohedral twins) that will enable good structures to be obtained from >>such data. At the moment most such data is thrown away. However, forcing >>everyone to deposit their frames each time they deposit a structure with >>the PDB would be a thorough nuisance and major logistic hassle. >> >>It is also a complete illusion to believe that the reviewers for Nature >>etc. would process or even look at frames, even if they could download >>them with the manusc
[ccp4bb] FW: [ccp4bb] The importance of USING our validation tools
-Original Message- From: Kantardjieff, Katherine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 4:55 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Dale Tronrud Subject: RE: [ccp4bb] The importance of USING our validation tools Since my name appeared in this email exchange, I thought I should respond. Let me say that the US National Committee for Crystallography and the ACA prepared and released a policy document on education and training in crystallography that attempts to exactly address the issues raised on this bulletin board. I spoke about this document and its contents at the ACA meeting in Honolulu, as well as in the IUCr Teaching Commission newsletter last fall, and referred to it again at the ACA meeting in Salt Lake City. The document makes recommendations regarding training and education of individuals in both the physical and the life sciences, at university or post-graduate, whether they require working knowledge or will become a practitioner/expert. The document also addresses undergraduate and K-12 education. Until crystallography is raised back to the level of a science, and its inherent difficulties are acknowledged and respected (no more snide remarks, no more attitudes that what we do is push button, with the black box analogy to 1D proton NMR), we will continue to see what has been the topic of this passionate discussion on the CCP4 bulletin board. We have younger colleagues applying for jobs telling us that to call themselves crystallographers in their CV is tantamount to a death sentence. Unfortunately, even prestigious societies like the ACS, in their revised draft on undergraduate education in chemistry, now do not even give cursory attention to diffraction. There is NO mention of it at all. ASBMB guidelines also say nothing. Similar problems exist in geology, where the education emphasis has shifted strongly towards the environment and ecology. The USNC/Cr policy document was originally to be distributed by the National Academies, but it is now available for download at http://faculty.fullerton.edu/kkantardjieff/stuff/USNCCr_policies.pdf. For those interested in the ACS draft guidelines, I provide a copy of this for download as well at http://faculty.fullerton.edu/kkantardjieff/stuff/acs_draftguidelines.pdf . ASBMB guidelines may be found at http://www.asbmb.org/asbmb/site.nsf/web/BDDA55D0DC3132DF85256CD3006ECED4 /$FILE/Curriculum_fnl_02.pdf Onwards, KAK -Original Message- From: Bernhard Rupp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 3:39 PM To: 'Dale Tronrud' Cc: Kantardjieff, Katherine Subject: RE: [ccp4bb] The importance of USING our validation tools > training has fallen behind and many people are solving structures that have never had formal or even informal instruction. YES! FINALLY SOMEONE who gets to the core of the issue. I cc: this to Katherine Kantardjieff on the US Natl Acad Committee to the IUCr. She is looking for fellows to support your/my/her assessment. > We can't even get reviewers to look at "Table 1"! ;-) > arrangements with some near-by friendly crystallographer for > assistance Uhhhthat would finally overwork only a small group of people with exceptional reputation - who else would you send your top hot nature structure data to? Not many friendly dinosaurs are left in this competitive world. I still think that careful reviewer selecting and pairing IS the journal editors' duty. THEY make money THEY should be held responsible for failure in the review process. < this statement finally terminates my chance of publishing in nature ever again. Best wishes, BR
Re: [ccp4bb] The importance of USING our validation tools
Dear all, I agree with MM about the ligand and complex structures. Even in the most honest circumstances, it is easy to get carried away with hopes and excitement. My personal embarassing experience was some years ago. It involved a protein that I had crystallized in a different space group in the presence of inhibitor- 2.5A data. The MR model had some gaps a moderate distance from the binding pocket. Lo and behold, some new, very rough density appeared very very close to a binding site- close enough to get my hopes up. I communicated my elation to the PI, handed over pictures of the rough blobs of density, and started trying to build the ligand in. I should have moderated my emotions in light of the early state of the refinement. After finding a somewhat plausible fit in the density, I ran several rounds of the Wonderful Amazing Revealer of Proteindensity program. By the end I was almost in tears. The difference density began to take on a helical shape, and then the connections started growing, leading all the way up to one of the gaps. Side chains too, so I had no trouble with the register. The R-factors didn't change too much, but the geometries and maps in the area started looking really nice. Or should I say, proper. Very nice silver platter (that my head was on when it was handed it back to me). Lisa
