Re: [ccp4bb]: Re: [o-info] R-sym I/sigI etc...

["Edward A. Berry" <EABerry@LBL.gov>]

***  For details on how to be removed from this list visit the  ***
***          CCP4 home page http://www.ccp4.ac.uk         ***

Well ...
Rather than omit the crystal entirely, I think I would cave in to 
the referee's demand and use a lower resolution or a sigma cutoff 
for the crystallization paper. This does not commit you to doing 
the same in the structure paper, does it? Since I take it the 
structure paper is pretty much assured now, the crystallization
paper is not important enough to be petulant by insisting on
using your last shell or otherwise not publishing any of it!
You can put a note in the text that there is some data at higher
resolution and you intend to use it in refinement, so that
crystallographers who don't follow this BB won't think you
old-fashioned.

Just my feelings -
Ed

rams@poori.biochem.uiowa.edu wrote:
> 
> Thanks everybody, but I am not done yet....
> 
> The overall discussion is very useful.  WE all agree weak data can be very
> useful.... but..
> 
> Lots of suggestions as to how I can prove my resolution with my maps and
> refinement etc..etc.. I know I can do that.  But I dont think I need to in
> a crystallization paper.  I am just quoting what I see from my crystals.
> If I say everything about the structure, then why have a crystallization
> section in ACTA -D.  I will write my structure paper and just mention in
> passing - that my crystals were grown with PEG4000 @pH6.0 - let the next
> person (if somebody ever does) who wants to try reproducing figure it out.
> 
> Now  prove that the data was useful - while I
> can prove that very well (now that I have the full structure refined);
> maps improve (I can see my ligand much better). My crystal is anisotropic
> and the average I/sigI is just completely meaningless. etc...etc..
> 
> So the take home message - only publish crystallization paper after you
> have full structure - or publish with good numbers (even if tweaked), when
> you cannot solve the structure!!   I suppose many of the powerful ACTA-D
> editorial people I hope are seeing these messages - I wonder if that was
> the purpose of the crystallization communications....
> 
> Unless, I see a strong reason to fight - I am planning to cut off data
> from this crystal form. We had data in 2 crystal forms and only one is
> in question.  What I am willing to say in the bulletin board, but not in
> my CYRSTALLIZATION PAPER - is that without multiple crystal averaging, we
> would not have been able to solve the structure for now.
> 
> Will wait a week - cool down a bit more before I respond to the referee.
> 
> Thanks for all the support. More flames/suggestions/support welcome.
> 
> Rams.
> 
> --
> S. Ramaswamy
> Department of Biochemistry.
> University of Iowa.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> o-info mailing list
> o-info@o-info.imsb.au.dk
> http://o-info.imsb.au.dk/mailman/listinfo/o-info