[ccp4bb] Postdoctoral position in Microbial Glycobiology

[Zimmer, Jochen (jz3x)]

Dear all,


We have an opening for a postdoctoral researcher with a strong interest in 
microbial secretion systems, complex carbohydrates, and structural biology. The 
project involves functional reconstitution of glycosyltransferases and 
associated components implicated in microbial cellulose biosynthesis, as well 
as X-ray crystallography and cryo electron microscopy for structural analyses. 
The University of Virginia School of Medicine provides access to 
state-of-the-art infrastructures for crystallographic and EM analyses.


Interested candidates with at least one peer-reviewed publication should send 
their CV and list of three referees to jochen_zim...@virginia.edu, together 
with a cover letter describing their interests in the project.


Happy New Year,

Jochen Zimmer

Re: [ccp4bb] "Atomic resolution"

[Bärbel Blaum]

Good topic, I just had a related thought: can I use the term in my NMR  
course to say it's the only spectroscopy that gives atomic resolution  
- meaning, here, that every NMR-active atom is distinguishable from  
its neighbours thanks to its unique chemical shift. At good enough  
resolution, i.e. field strength... Is it fair to use the term here or  
would you object since I am not talking about spacial resolution but  
something that could maybe be called 'chemical' resolution? But it is  
still 'atomic', isn't it?


Cheers, Bärbel

On 11 Jan 2018, at 19:31, Keller, Jacob  
> wrote:


Dear Crystallographers,

Has there been a consensus as to what is meant by “atomic  
resolution?” Seems like the term is taken by various practitioners  
to mean different things.


A related question: at what resolution are atoms “visible” using  
only the data? I have an empirical feeling that this would be around  
1.5 Ang Bragg spacings, but on the other hand, one can contour up  
most maps and see individual atom peaks. I would be interested to  
hear a more rigorous way to think about this.


All the best,

Jacob Keller

+
Jacob Pearson Keller
Research Scientist / Looger Lab
HHMI Janelia Research Campus
19700 Helix Dr, Ashburn, VA 20147
(571)209-4000 x3159
+

The content of this email is confidential and intended for the  
recipient specified in message only. It is strictly forbidden to  
share any part of this message with any third party, without a  
written consent of the sender. If you received this message by  
mistake, please reply to this message and follow with its deletion,  
so that we can ensure such a mistake does not occur in the future.



--
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential, copyright  
and or privileged material, and are for the use of the intended  
addressee only. If you are not the intended addressee or an  
authorised recipient of the addressee please notify us of receipt by  
returning the e-mail and do not use, copy, retain, distribute or  
disclose the information in or attached to the e-mail.
Any opinions expressed within this e-mail are those of the  
individual and not necessarily of Diamond Light Source Ltd.
Diamond Light Source Ltd. cannot guarantee that this e-mail or any  
attachments are free from viruses and we cannot accept liability for  
any damage which you may sustain as a result of software viruses  
which may be transmitted in or with the message.
Diamond Light Source Limited (company no. 4375679). Registered in  
England and Wales with its registered office at Diamond House,  
Harwell Science and Innovation Campus, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11  
0DE, United Kingdom




--
Bärbel Blaum, Ph.D.
Interfakultäres Institut für Biochemie (IFIB)
Hoppe-Seyler-Strasse 4
D-72076 Tübingen
Germany
+49 70 71 29 733 48
Raum 311

Re: [ccp4bb] "Atomic resolution"

[Graeme Winter]

Hi Jacob

If there’s fresh air between atoms in coot and you can assign the element by 
eye it’s atomic resolution to me

Probably corresponds to about 1.2A or thereabouts

I do however also respect the 0.8A limit used by our chemical crystallography 
colleagues

My two cents...

Best wishes Graeme

On 11 Jan 2018, at 19:31, Keller, Jacob 
> wrote:

Dear Crystallographers,

Has there been a consensus as to what is meant by “atomic resolution?” Seems 
like the term is taken by various practitioners to mean different things.

A related question: at what resolution are atoms “visible” using only the data? 
I have an empirical feeling that this would be around 1.5 Ang Bragg spacings, 
but on the other hand, one can contour up most maps and see individual atom 
peaks. I would be interested to hear a more rigorous way to think about this.

All the best,

Jacob Keller

+
Jacob Pearson Keller
Research Scientist / Looger Lab
HHMI Janelia Research Campus
19700 Helix Dr, Ashburn, VA 20147
(571)209-4000 x3159
+

The content of this email is confidential and intended for the recipient 
specified in message only. It is strictly forbidden to share any part of this 
message with any third party, without a written consent of the sender. If you 
received this message by mistake, please reply to this message and follow with 
its deletion, so that we can ensure such a mistake does not occur in the future.


-- 
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential, copyright and or 
privileged material, and are for the use of the intended addressee only. If you 
are not the intended addressee or an authorised recipient of the addressee 
please notify us of receipt by returning the e-mail and do not use, copy, 
retain, distribute or disclose the information in or attached to the e-mail.
Any opinions expressed within this e-mail are those of the individual and not 
necessarily of Diamond Light Source Ltd. 
Diamond Light Source Ltd. cannot guarantee that this e-mail or any attachments 
are free from viruses and we cannot accept liability for any damage which you 
may sustain as a result of software viruses which may be transmitted in or with 
the message.
Diamond Light Source Limited (company no. 4375679). Registered in England and 
Wales with its registered office at Diamond House, Harwell Science and 
Innovation Campus, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0DE, United Kingdom

Re: [ccp4bb] "Atomic resolution"

[Gloria Borgstahl]

My answer is not precise, I just try to give students something they
can remember, so they don't go and model water for example at an
inappropriate resolution.  Of course phasing matters as well.

On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 2:31 PM, Keller, Jacob  wrote:
>>I tell people it is when your resolution is less than the bond length that 
>>connects the two atoms.
>
> I thought this was sort of a pitfall, since the Bragg spacings don't 
> necessarily map on to conventional resolution. But it would fit the 1.5 Ang 
> estimate.
>
> Also, resolution would depend a lot on phase accuracy/precision, no?
>
> JPK
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 1:59 PM, Thomas Edwards  
> wrote:
>> Dear Jacob,
>>
>> Ah... this old chestnut!
>>
>> Current EM people say that they are at atomic resolution because they
>> are building atomic models (naive??).
>>
>> I have been criticised in the past for using the term with say 2.2A
>> diffraction data. By co-authors and reviewers alike. When I was young
>> and naive.
>>
>> My (current) definition would be yours - visible with data.
>> I think 1.5A is about right for X-ray. Maybe higher res?
>>
>> I’m sure there are lots of rigorous ways to think. I probably haven’t
>> taken that route. However, I think it is a semantic problem that might
>> benefit from some disambiguation rather than rigour.
>>
>> It depends why you are asking the question...
>>
>> Sorry..!
>>
>> Ed is: Out and about...
>> Sent from iPhone6sPlus.
>>
>> On 11 Jan 2018, at 19:31, Keller, Jacob  wrote:
>>
>> Dear Crystallographers,
>>
>>
>>
>> Has there been a consensus as to what is meant by “atomic resolution?”
>> Seems like the term is taken by various practitioners to mean different 
>> things.
>>
>>
>>
>> A related question: at what resolution are atoms “visible” using only
>> the data? I have an empirical feeling that this would be around 1.5
>> Ang Bragg spacings, but on the other hand, one can contour up most
>> maps and see individual atom peaks. I would be interested to hear a
>> more rigorous way to think about this.
>>
>>
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>>
>>
>> Jacob Keller
>>
>>
>>
>> +
>>
>> Jacob Pearson Keller
>>
>> Research Scientist / Looger Lab
>>
>> HHMI Janelia Research Campus
>>
>> 19700 Helix Dr, Ashburn, VA 20147
>>
>> (571)209-4000 x3159
>>
>> +
>>
>>
>>
>> The content of this email is confidential and intended for the
>> recipient specified in message only. It is strictly forbidden to share
>> any part of this message with any third party, without a written consent of 
>> the sender.
>> If you received this message by mistake, please reply to this message
>> and follow with its deletion, so that we can ensure such a mistake
>> does not occur in the future.
>>
>>

Re: [ccp4bb] "Atomic resolution"

[Keller, Jacob]

>I tell people it is when your resolution is less than the bond length that 
>connects the two atoms.

I thought this was sort of a pitfall, since the Bragg spacings don't 
necessarily map on to conventional resolution. But it would fit the 1.5 Ang 
estimate.

Also, resolution would depend a lot on phase accuracy/precision, no?

JPK


On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 1:59 PM, Thomas Edwards  wrote:
> Dear Jacob,
>
> Ah... this old chestnut!
>
> Current EM people say that they are at atomic resolution because they 
> are building atomic models (naive??).
>
> I have been criticised in the past for using the term with say 2.2A 
> diffraction data. By co-authors and reviewers alike. When I was young 
> and naive.
>
> My (current) definition would be yours - visible with data.
> I think 1.5A is about right for X-ray. Maybe higher res?
>
> I’m sure there are lots of rigorous ways to think. I probably haven’t 
> taken that route. However, I think it is a semantic problem that might 
> benefit from some disambiguation rather than rigour.
>
> It depends why you are asking the question...
>
> Sorry..!
>
> Ed is: Out and about...
> Sent from iPhone6sPlus.
>
> On 11 Jan 2018, at 19:31, Keller, Jacob  wrote:
>
> Dear Crystallographers,
>
>
>
> Has there been a consensus as to what is meant by “atomic resolution?” 
> Seems like the term is taken by various practitioners to mean different 
> things.
>
>
>
> A related question: at what resolution are atoms “visible” using only 
> the data? I have an empirical feeling that this would be around 1.5 
> Ang Bragg spacings, but on the other hand, one can contour up most 
> maps and see individual atom peaks. I would be interested to hear a 
> more rigorous way to think about this.
>
>
>
> All the best,
>
>
>
> Jacob Keller
>
>
>
> +
>
> Jacob Pearson Keller
>
> Research Scientist / Looger Lab
>
> HHMI Janelia Research Campus
>
> 19700 Helix Dr, Ashburn, VA 20147
>
> (571)209-4000 x3159
>
> +
>
>
>
> The content of this email is confidential and intended for the 
> recipient specified in message only. It is strictly forbidden to share 
> any part of this message with any third party, without a written consent of 
> the sender.
> If you received this message by mistake, please reply to this message 
> and follow with its deletion, so that we can ensure such a mistake 
> does not occur in the future.
>
>

[ccp4bb] phosphates

[Gloria Borgstahl]

Doe any one know what resolution is needed to distinguish phosphate
from carbon in a difference map?

Re: [ccp4bb] "Atomic resolution"

[Gloria Borgstahl]

I tell people it is when your resolution is less than the bond length
that connects the two atoms.

On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 1:59 PM, Thomas Edwards  wrote:
> Dear Jacob,
>
> Ah... this old chestnut!
>
> Current EM people say that they are at atomic resolution because they are
> building atomic models (naive??).
>
> I have been criticised in the past for using the term with say 2.2A
> diffraction data. By co-authors and reviewers alike. When I was young and
> naive.
>
> My (current) definition would be yours - visible with data.
> I think 1.5A is about right for X-ray. Maybe higher res?
>
> I’m sure there are lots of rigorous ways to think. I probably haven’t taken
> that route. However, I think it is a semantic problem that might benefit
> from some disambiguation rather than rigour.
>
> It depends why you are asking the question...
>
> Sorry..!
>
> Ed is: Out and about...
> Sent from iPhone6sPlus.
>
> On 11 Jan 2018, at 19:31, Keller, Jacob  wrote:
>
> Dear Crystallographers,
>
>
>
> Has there been a consensus as to what is meant by “atomic resolution?” Seems
> like the term is taken by various practitioners to mean different things.
>
>
>
> A related question: at what resolution are atoms “visible” using only the
> data? I have an empirical feeling that this would be around 1.5 Ang Bragg
> spacings, but on the other hand, one can contour up most maps and see
> individual atom peaks. I would be interested to hear a more rigorous way to
> think about this.
>
>
>
> All the best,
>
>
>
> Jacob Keller
>
>
>
> +
>
> Jacob Pearson Keller
>
> Research Scientist / Looger Lab
>
> HHMI Janelia Research Campus
>
> 19700 Helix Dr, Ashburn, VA 20147
>
> (571)209-4000 x3159
>
> +
>
>
>
> The content of this email is confidential and intended for the recipient
> specified in message only. It is strictly forbidden to share any part of
> this message with any third party, without a written consent of the sender.
> If you received this message by mistake, please reply to this message and
> follow with its deletion, so that we can ensure such a mistake does not
> occur in the future.
>
>

Re: [ccp4bb] "Atomic resolution"

[Diana Tomchick]

In the “good old days” we used to refer to “atomic resolution” as higher than 
1.0 Å (or more specifically, at least 0.8 Å resolution), e.g. the resolution 
obtained by most small molecule structures, where you get at least 10 times the 
number of observables per refined parameter, and thus could do full matrix 
least squares refinement of your model (including anisotropic thermal parameter 
refinement on all non-hydrogen atoms).

But then, I guess that just shows my age,

Diana

**
Diana R. Tomchick
Professor
Departments of Biophysics and Biochemistry
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center
5323 Harry Hines Blvd.
Rm. ND10.214A
Dallas, TX 75390-8816
diana.tomch...@utsouthwestern.edu
(214) 645-6383 (phone)
(214) 645-6353 (fax)

On Jan 11, 2018, at 1:59 PM, Thomas Edwards 
> wrote:

Dear Jacob,

Ah... this old chestnut!

Current EM people say that they are at atomic resolution because they are 
building atomic models (naive??).

I have been criticised in the past for using the term with say 2.2A diffraction 
data. By co-authors and reviewers alike. When I was young and naive.

My (current) definition would be yours - visible with data.
I think 1.5A is about right for X-ray. Maybe higher res?

I’m sure there are lots of rigorous ways to think. I probably haven’t taken 
that route. However, I think it is a semantic problem that might benefit from 
some disambiguation rather than rigour.

It depends why you are asking the question...

Sorry..!

Ed is: Out and about...
Sent from iPhone6sPlus.

On 11 Jan 2018, at 19:31, Keller, Jacob 
> wrote:

Dear Crystallographers,

Has there been a consensus as to what is meant by “atomic resolution?” Seems 
like the term is taken by various practitioners to mean different things.

A related question: at what resolution are atoms “visible” using only the data? 
I have an empirical feeling that this would be around 1.5 Ang Bragg spacings, 
but on the other hand, one can contour up most maps and see individual atom 
peaks. I would be interested to hear a more rigorous way to think about this.

All the best,

Jacob Keller

+
Jacob Pearson Keller
Research Scientist / Looger Lab
HHMI Janelia Research Campus
19700 Helix Dr, Ashburn, VA 20147
(571)209-4000 x3159
+

The content of this email is confidential and intended for the recipient 
specified in message only. It is strictly forbidden to share any part of this 
message with any third party, without a written consent of the sender. If you 
received this message by mistake, please reply to this message and follow with 
its deletion, so that we can ensure such a mistake does not occur in the future.




UT Southwestern


Medical Center



The future of medicine, today.

Re: [ccp4bb] "Atomic resolution"

[Keller, Jacob]

The reason behind this query is that I want to illustrate the power of prior 
knowledge in data analysis. I want to say something like “even though atoms 
cannot be directly observed at worse than X resolution, which represents Y% of 
the PDB, all of these data sets have been fit correctly with atomic models. 
This is due entirely to the power of the excellent priors which exist in 
crystallography.”

JPK

+
Jacob Pearson Keller
Research Scientist / Looger Lab
HHMI Janelia Research Campus
19700 Helix Dr, Ashburn, VA 20147
(571)209-4000 x3159
+

The content of this email is confidential and intended for the recipient 
specified in message only. It is strictly forbidden to share any part of this 
message with any third party, without a written consent of the sender. If you 
received this message by mistake, please reply to this message and follow with 
its deletion, so that we can ensure such a mistake does not occur in the future.

From: Thomas Edwards [mailto:t.a.edwa...@leeds.ac.uk]
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2018 2:59 PM
To: Keller, Jacob 
Cc: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] "Atomic resolution"

Dear Jacob,

Ah... this old chestnut!

Current EM people say that they are at atomic resolution because they are 
building atomic models (naive??).

I have been criticised in the past for using the term with say 2.2A diffraction 
data. By co-authors and reviewers alike. When I was young and naive.

My (current) definition would be yours - visible with data.
I think 1.5A is about right for X-ray. Maybe higher res?

I’m sure there are lots of rigorous ways to think. I probably haven’t taken 
that route. However, I think it is a semantic problem that might benefit from 
some disambiguation rather than rigour.

It depends why you are asking the question...

Sorry..!
Ed is: Out and about...
Sent from iPhone6sPlus.

On 11 Jan 2018, at 19:31, Keller, Jacob 
> wrote:
Dear Crystallographers,

Has there been a consensus as to what is meant by “atomic resolution?” Seems 
like the term is taken by various practitioners to mean different things.

A related question: at what resolution are atoms “visible” using only the data? 
I have an empirical feeling that this would be around 1.5 Ang Bragg spacings, 
but on the other hand, one can contour up most maps and see individual atom 
peaks. I would be interested to hear a more rigorous way to think about this.

All the best,

Jacob Keller

+
Jacob Pearson Keller
Research Scientist / Looger Lab
HHMI Janelia Research Campus
19700 Helix Dr, Ashburn, VA 20147
(571)209-4000 x3159
+

The content of this email is confidential and intended for the recipient 
specified in message only. It is strictly forbidden to share any part of this 
message with any third party, without a written consent of the sender. If you 
received this message by mistake, please reply to this message and follow with 
its deletion, so that we can ensure such a mistake does not occur in the future.

Re: [ccp4bb] "Atomic resolution"

[Thomas Edwards]

Dear Jacob,

Ah... this old chestnut!

Current EM people say that they are at atomic resolution because they are 
building atomic models (naive??).

I have been criticised in the past for using the term with say 2.2A diffraction 
data. By co-authors and reviewers alike. When I was young and naive.

My (current) definition would be yours - visible with data.
I think 1.5A is about right for X-ray. Maybe higher res?

I’m sure there are lots of rigorous ways to think. I probably haven’t taken 
that route. However, I think it is a semantic problem that might benefit from 
some disambiguation rather than rigour.

It depends why you are asking the question...

Sorry..!

Ed is: Out and about...
Sent from iPhone6sPlus.

On 11 Jan 2018, at 19:31, Keller, Jacob 
> wrote:

Dear Crystallographers,

Has there been a consensus as to what is meant by “atomic resolution?” Seems 
like the term is taken by various practitioners to mean different things.

A related question: at what resolution are atoms “visible” using only the data? 
I have an empirical feeling that this would be around 1.5 Ang Bragg spacings, 
but on the other hand, one can contour up most maps and see individual atom 
peaks. I would be interested to hear a more rigorous way to think about this.

All the best,

Jacob Keller

+
Jacob Pearson Keller
Research Scientist / Looger Lab
HHMI Janelia Research Campus
19700 Helix Dr, Ashburn, VA 20147
(571)209-4000 x3159
+

The content of this email is confidential and intended for the recipient 
specified in message only. It is strictly forbidden to share any part of this 
message with any third party, without a written consent of the sender. If you 
received this message by mistake, please reply to this message and follow with 
its deletion, so that we can ensure such a mistake does not occur in the future.

[ccp4bb] "Atomic resolution"

[Keller, Jacob]

Dear Crystallographers,

Has there been a consensus as to what is meant by "atomic resolution?" Seems 
like the term is taken by various practitioners to mean different things.

A related question: at what resolution are atoms "visible" using only the data? 
I have an empirical feeling that this would be around 1.5 Ang Bragg spacings, 
but on the other hand, one can contour up most maps and see individual atom 
peaks. I would be interested to hear a more rigorous way to think about this.

All the best,

Jacob Keller

+
Jacob Pearson Keller
Research Scientist / Looger Lab
HHMI Janelia Research Campus
19700 Helix Dr, Ashburn, VA 20147
(571)209-4000 x3159
+

The content of this email is confidential and intended for the recipient 
specified in message only. It is strictly forbidden to share any part of this 
message with any third party, without a written consent of the sender. If you 
received this message by mistake, please reply to this message and follow with 
its deletion, so that we can ensure such a mistake does not occur in the future.

Re: [ccp4bb] Research Specialist II Position Opportunity at Cedars-Sinai Inflammatory Bowel and Immunobiology Research Institute (IBIRI), Los Angeles, CA

[Velasco, Christy]

[Loren:1WORK:Logo_Art:FW IBIRI Logos 3_7_14:Widjaja-IBIR_Vert_4C.eps]


The Cedars -Sinai F. Widjaja Foundation Inflammatory Bowel and Immunobiology 
Research Institute (IBIRI) is searching for a highly motivated Research 
Specialist II to be part of Cedars-Sinai's commitment to Precision Health 
through an exciting opportunity within our IBD Drug Discovery and Development 
Unit (IBD3). We are a multidisciplinary basic, translational and clinical 
program devoted to mucosal inflammation. The mission of the IBD3 unit is to use 
personalized medicine approaches to predict the success of current and future 
therapeutic for inflammatory bowel diseases. The IBD3 program is u uniquely 
structured to join academic science with industry partners to discover and 
validate new therapeutic targets, accelerate drug development through patient 
stratification, and rescue and repurpose failed drugs by identifying drug 
responsive patient populations. The unit embodies a spirit of discovery with 
world leaders and research scientists on the care and management of IBD.



More information can be found at: 
https://www.cedars-sinai.edu/Research/Research-Labs/Bilsborough-Lab/



The IBD3 unit is seeking a mission-focused Research Specialist II, with the 
expertise in the development of protein expression and purification strategies 
to support ongoing drug discovery and development needs. Under the leadership 
of the IBD3 unit Director, the Research Specialist II will utilize a solid 
foundation in research and experience with techniques associated with a 
specific area of research.  Incumbent will be capable of exercising independent 
judgment while developing and implementing research programs, project planning, 
enrollment of patients, experimental protocols and procedures, database 
development and analysis including evaluating and interpreting results.  Will 
supervise lab activities, including research grant management, human resources, 
responsibility delegation, and provide training to other individuals who may be 
assigned to the project, study, or laboratory.  Reports to and works closely 
with Principal Investigator and has independent supervision of a laboratory or 
program.  Will prepare grant proposals, publications, and presentations. Will 
function as a bridge between research and clinical programs which may have 
local and national contributors and investigators relying on information 
provided.  Will have delegated authority to make substantive decisions and 
commitments in accord with the established goals and objectives of the 
laboratory or program.



Essential Job Duties and Responsibilities:



- Acts as a project lead and coordinator interacting with collaborators, 
clinical research personnel and researchers as part of a research team.

- Participates in all aspects of clinical development and study management 
(protocol design, enrollment of patients, development and implementation of 
protocols, and if applicable, submission of IRB applications and approvals).

- Follows established procedures or protocols to perform laboratory tests 
and/or experiments which will include: basic tissue culture, immunoassays, 
molecular biology techniques, microscopy, animal preparation (e.g. tail vein 
injections) and surgery.

- Provides scientific expertise to ongoing and future trials.

Identify and resolve common problems involved in routine research assays.

- Establishes and maintains relationships with clinical investigators and 
manages internal and external collaborative research projects.

- Acts as a scientific resource for the affiliated pre-clinical research 
laboratory (e.g., assisted with experimental designs, data analysis, 
interpretation of scientific literature).

- Supervises, leads, and trains other individuals assigned to the lab.

- Prepares grant applications and oversees submission process, including 
writing of grant proposal.

- Capable of exercising independent judgment while participating in the 
planning of experiments and evaluating and interpreting results.

- Operates appropriate laboratory equipment.

- Monitors inventory levels, orders materials and supplies in accordance with 
established policies and procedures.

- Operates lab computers for data entry and maintains accurate data records.

- Uses various software applications, such as spreadsheets, electronic mail, 
World Wide Web, statistical packages, and graphics packages to assemble, 
manipulate and/or format data and/or test reports.



Department and/or Unit Specific:



- Must demonstrate strong biochemistry skills and keeps up-to-date with the 
latest technologies to continually improve operational procedures.

- Able to Implement a variety of expression systems including e.coli, mammalian 
and baculovirus cell culture

- Hands on expertise in construct design, protein expression and purification

- Proven experience in difficult-to-express and purify proteins such as 
membrane proteins, enzymes and Fc-fusion for 

[ccp4bb] postdoc positions - Structural and Chemical biology of new drug targets for Alzheimer

[Opher Gileadi]

Postdoctoral Scientist - Structural Biology (2 posts)

SGC, Nuffield Department of Medicine (NDM), Old Road Campus Research Building, 
Roosevelt Drive, Headington, Oxford OX3 7DQ
Grade 7: Salary in the range £31,604 - £33,518 p.a.

For full details and application links see:
http://www.thesgc.org/careers/oxford/sgc-oxford-postdoctoral-scientist-structural-biology-2-posts

We are seeking two postdoctoral scientists with expertise in protein 
crystallography and biochemistry to explore new potential drug targets for 
treatment or prevention of dementia.

The Accelerating Medicines Partnership - Alzheimer's Disease (AMP-AD, 
www.nia.nih.gov/research/amp-ad) is an ambitious project funded by the US 
National Institute of Health, pharmaceutical companies and non-profit 
organisations. It integrates data from RNA, protein and metabolomics 
measurements in brain samples, network analysis and pathway modelling, to 
identify potential new drug targets and biomarkers for Alzheimer treatment and 
prevention. In its second phase, a selected set of targets are moved forward to 
further validation studies. The Gileadi group has extensive experience in 
structure and chemical biology of novel human proteins, and enjoys access to 
technologies for structure-guided chemical development for new target classes,

The two postdoctoral scientist roles will each be responsible for a diverse set 
of novel candidate target genes: In particular, develop methods for expression 
and purification of the target proteins, structural analysis by crystallography 
and other methods, biochemical activity assays, and identification of ligands 
by screening and structure-guided approaches, including the 
crystallography-based fragment screen 
(www.diamond.ac.uk/Beamlines/Mx/Fragment-Screening.html)

You will be educated to PhD degree level in structural biology or possess 
equivalent experience (or be close to completion of a PhD). Proven experience 
in protein biochemistry and crystallography would be essential. In addition, 
the ability to plan and perform experiments independently. You will be able to 
work as part of a multidisciplinary team and be well-organised in planning and 
documenting experiments.

The two posts are full-time and available on a fixed-term contract until 31 
August 2019 in the first instance.

You will be required to upload a CV and supporting statement which explains how 
you meet the selection criteria for the post.

Only applications received before 12.00 noon on 5 February 2018 will be 
considered.
Contact Person :HR Officer - RecruitmentVacancy ID :132792
Contact Phone : 01865 617971Closing Date :  05-Feb-2018
Contact Email : orcrb.person...@ndm.ox.ac.uk

Re: [ccp4bb] study weekend live stream

[Peter Keller]

If anyone reading this is in a position to help, could something be done 
about the extreme unreliability of the audio? It keeps cutting out, and 
there is a limit to how many times we can text someone who is physically 
there to go and ask for it to be fixed.


Thanks,
Peter.

On 09/01/18 10:39, Charles Ballard wrote:

Dear All

a little clunky, but here are the instructions.  Streaming starts for 
the what's new at 9am GMT tomorrow


Go to
http://www.stfc.ac.uk/about-us/our-purpose-and-priorities/freedom-of-information/webinars/

And the select your device type.
  Charles


--
Peter Keller Tel.: +44 (0)1223 353033
Global Phasing Ltd., Fax.: +44 (0)1223 366889
Sheraton House,
Castle Park,
Cambridge CB3 0AX
United Kingdom

Re: [ccp4bb] proxy settings for ccp4 package manager

[Johannes Cramer]

Thanks for this reply
I exported http_proxy... It is not like the ccp4um does not have a
connection.
It can determine that there are updates and downloads and installs small
updates (up to a handfull of MB) without a problem.
Larger updates start downloading at ridiculously low speeds, then suddenly
finish and generate a MD5 checksum error.
Is our proxy just weird?!?

Cheers,
Johannes

2018-01-11 0:19 GMT+01:00 Takanori Nakane :

> Hi Johannes,
>
> On RHEL 6.7, setting "http_proxy" was sufficient.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Takanori Nakane
>
> On 2018/01/09 13:18, Johannes Cramer wrote:
>
>> Dear CCP4bb,
>>
>> does anyone know how I can make the ccp4 package manager use a proxy for
>> downloading in Linux 64bit versions?
>> This would make installing and updating a whole lot easier for me...
>>
>> I exported http_proxy, https_proxy, ftp_proxy (and all their capital
>> letter
>> equivalents) and setup the system proxy in kde (although I think this only
>> matters for kde programs). I am using the 10.17 version of kubuntu, but
>> would also be interested in a solution that works for Mac.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Johannes
>>
>>
>