*** For details on how to be removed from this list visit the *** *** CCP4 home page http://www.ccp4.ac.uk ***
It sounds like an honest mistake,
It very well may be, but at least it suggests that it is a good idea to actually describe what was done in the Methods section and deposit structure factors. The retraction reads: "An in-house data reduction program introduced a change in sign for anomalous differences. This program, which was not part of a conventional data processing package, converted the anomalous pairs (I+ and I-) to (F- and F+), thereby introducing a sign change." The original 2001 paper, however, reads: "All data sets were collected at –165°C and processed using the programs HKL2000 (HKL Research) and MOSFLM/SCALA." In the Science commentary, it is said that "On reading the Nature paper, Chang quickly traced the mix-up back to the analysis program, which he says he inherited from another lab." So, should this be interpreted that there are other structures reported by other lab where data were processed with the same flawed program? Dima
