Thank you for clarifying this James. Those details are indeed often lost/misinterpreted when the paper is discussed in journal club, so your comment was especially helpful.
Best wishes, Thomas On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 20:38, James Holton <jmhol...@lbl.gov> wrote: > > As one of the people involved (I'm author #74 out of 88 on PMID 21293373), I > can tell you that about half of the three million snapshots were blank, but > we wanted to be honest about the number that were collected, as well as the > "minimum" number that were needed to get a useful data set. The blank > images were on purpose, since the nanocrystals were diluted so that there > would be relatively few double-hits. As many of you know, multiple lattices > crash autoindexing algorithms! > > Whether or not a blank image or a failed autoindexing run qualifies as > "conforming to our existing model" or not I suppose is a matter of > semantics. But yes, I suppose some details do get lost between the actual > work and the press release! > > In case anyone wants to look at the data, it has been deposited in the PDB > under 3PCQ, and the detailed processing methods published under PMID: > 20389587. > > -James Holton > MAD Scientist > > On 2/9/2011 10:38 AM, Thomas Juettemann wrote: >> >> http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=20045.php >> >> http://home.slac.stanford.edu/pressreleases/2011/20110202.htm >> >> I think it is pretty exciting, although they only take the few >> datasets that conform to their >> existing model: >> >> "The team combined 10,000 of the three million snapshots they took to >> come up with a good match for the known molecular structure of >> Photosystem I." > >
