Dear Colin, Wladek Minor has just drawn my attention to the following recent paper: Acta Cryst. (2010). D66, 1041.1042
(that I must admit to having failed to notice) also expressing reservations about some uses of "creative language". With best wishes, Gerard. -- On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 11:13:41AM -0000, Colin Nave wrote: > I too think the phrase super-resolution is rather misleading, in particular > the analogy with light microscopy methods. Super-resolution in these latter > cases is achieved via different physical phenomena (think excitations not > waves). > > > > Would one claim super-resolution when refining the relative positions of the > carbon atoms in benzene given the constraints of 6 fold symmetry and a carbon > carbon distance of 1.39 angstroms? > > > > What would Moliere think? > > > > However, to quote from the DEN paper > > "Our approach is a major advance over conventional modeling of low resolution > X-ray diffraction data by fitting rigid bodies since it accounts for > deformations of the models while at the same time using a minimal set of > variables (the single-bond torsion angles)" > > > > Overall this seems a reasonable claim. > > Colin > > > > From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:ccp...@jiscmail.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Charles > W. Carter, Jr > Sent: 06 January 2011 09:52 > To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK > Subject: [ccp4bb] Fwd: [ccp4bb] FW: [ccp4bb] Resolution and distance > accuracies > > > > > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > > > > From: "Charles W. Carter, Jr" <car...@med.unc.edu> > > Date: January 6, 2011 10:51:20 AM GMT+01:00 > > To: Gerard Bricogne <g...@globalphasing.com> > > Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] FW: [ccp4bb] Resolution and distance accuracies > > > > I echo Gérard's thought. > > > > Pascal Retailleau did a relevant experiment published in Acta D: > > > > Retailleau, et al., (2001) High-resolution experimental phases for > tryptophanyl-tRNA synthetase > > (TrpRS) complexed with tryptophanyl-5'AMP, Acta Cryst, D57, 1595-1608 > > > > He determined three independent sets of experimental phases for two different > 1.7 Å selenomethionine structures (SAD) plus a 1.6 Å native (MIRAS) and > refined the structures independently. The rmsd between the two SeMet > structures was 0.25 Å, whereas that between the two SAD structures and the > native structure was 0.39 Å, sufficient to demonstrate significant > differences between the SeMet and native proteins. This experimental variance > is a quite considerable indication of the magnitude of coordinate errors. > > > > Thus, as Gérard, who also was an author on that work together with Bob Sweet, > points out, we're delighted to discover we have been achieving > super-resolution to use Axel's neologism! > > > > Charlie > > > > > > > > On Jan 6, 2011, at 10:13 AM, Gerard Bricogne wrote: > > > > > > Dear Axel, > > On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 01:15:44PM -0800, Axel Brunger wrote: > > > > We defined "super-resolution" in our DEN paper as > > achieving coordinate accuracy better than the resolution > > limit d_min of the diffraction data. We proposed this > > definition in analogy to its use wide-spread use in optical microscopy: > > "super-resolution" methods such as STORM, PALM, and STED achieve > > accuracy of positions of fluorescent labels significantly better than > the > > diffraction limit (in some cases, sub-nanometer accuracy - > > Pertsinidis, Zhang, Chu, Nature 466, 647-651, 2010). > > > In that case, all crystallographers doing stereochemically restrained > refinement will now have become aware, to their great delight, that they > have been unknowingly achieving "super-resolution" all the time, from the > grand old days of Bob Diamond's real-space refinement program - just like > Monsieur Jourdain found out that he had been speaking in prose all his life > without realising it. > > I guess that "super-resolution" is a sexier keyword in the mind of > editors of Nature that "restrained crystallographic refinement" :-)) ! > > > With best wishes for the New Year, > > Gerard. > > -- > > > > We found DEN to be useful to move some atoms into correct > > positions in cases where electron density maps are difficult or > > impossible to interpret at low resolution. By default, DEN is > > active during the first torsion angle molecular dynamics stages, > > but then turned off during the last two stages. In addition, the > > DEN network is deformable. Thus, DEN is very different from > > "secondary structure" restraints or point restraints to reference > > models which are "on" all the time. Rather, DEN steers or > > guides the torsion angle conformational search process during > > refinement. > > > > Cheers, > > Axel > > > > > > > > On Dec 24, 2010, at 2:14 PM, Bernhard Rupp (Hofkristallrat a.D.) wrote: > > > > I find the "super-resolution" claims in this paper a > bit of a conjuring > > trick. > > > > I think it is understood that information cannot come from > nothing. You > > cannot cheat in basic physics. Interestingly, I had the same > discussion with > > bioinformatics colleagues a short time ago. The problem is the > same and > > seems of a semantic nature. They are using prior information of > some sort > > (undisclosed) to successfully improve maps and they suggested > to call this > > 'resolution increase'. I had the same objection and said that in > > crystallography resolution is a relatively hard term defined by > the degree > > to which experimental observations are available, and as > crystallographers > > we won't like that claim at all. > > > > On the other side it is uncontested that as long as the model > fits > > (crossvalidation-) data better when prior information is used, > something > > useful has been achieved - again with all the caveats of > weights and bias > > etc admitted. > > > > However, how to entice non-experts to actually use new methods > is another > > thing, and here the semantics come in. In essence, if at the > end it results > > in better structures, how much of the unfortunately but > undeniably necessary > > salesmanship is just right or acceptable? Within contemporary > social > > constraints (aka Zeitgeist) that remains pretty much an > infinitely debatable > > matter.. > > > > Merry Christmas, BR > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Dear Bernhard, > > > > I must say that I find the "super-resolution" claims in this > paper a > > bit of a conjuring trick. If the final refined model has > greater accuracy > > than one would expect from the resolution of the data it has > been refined > > against, it is because that extra accuracy has been lifted from > the higher > > resolution data that were used to refine the structure on the > basis of which > > the elastic network restraints were created. > > > > Should we then say that we achieve super-resolution whenever > we refine > > a macromolecular structure using Engh & Huber restraints, > because these > > enable us to achieve distance accuracies comparable with those > in the small > > molecules structures in the Cambridge Structural Database? > > > > Perhaps I have missed an essential point of this paper. > > > > > > With best wishes, > > > > Gerard. > > > > Axel T. Brunger > > Investigator, Howard Hughes Medical Institute > > Professor of Molecular and Cellular Physiology > > Stanford University > > > > Web: http://atbweb.stanford.edu <http://atbweb.stanford.edu/> > > Email: brun...@stanford.edu > > Phone: +1 650-736-1031 > > Fax: +1 650-745-1463 > > > > > -- > > =============================================================== > * * > * Gerard Bricogne g...@globalphasing.com * > * * > * Global Phasing Ltd. * > * Sheraton House, Castle Park Tel: +44-(0)1223-353033 * > * Cambridge CB3 0AX, UK Fax: +44-(0)1223-366889 * > * * > =============================================================== >