Just to add one more vote: can't agree more, Ed. I remember those days
working on implementing ultra-high resolution refinement in phenix.refine
and repeatedly heard remarks like "hey, I can figure out if ligand's there
at 2A a few refinement cycles away from my MR solution, so why bother with
0.75A dataset: cut it off at 1.5-2A and here you go - problem solved!"

Pavel

On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Ed Pozharski <[email protected]>wrote:

> On Thu, 2012-12-13 at 17:50 +0000, Theresa Hsu wrote:
> > Being a beginner crystallographer, may I ask a basic question? On how
> > many occasions does it make a *biological* difference between having a
> > structure at 1.42 and 1.6 A?
>
> And your definition of "biological difference" is exactly what?  Every
> field of experimental science strives to obtain results of best possible
> quality, why should macromolecular crystallography be different?  Would
> you be satisfied with a report that "binding assays show presence of
> binding which perhaps is in submicromolar range but we don't care to
> determine actual binding constants"?
>
> You should also realize that while ccp4bb has evolved over years into a
> forum covering topics well beyond computational aspects of
> macromolecular crystallography, at its core it still is made of
> individuals who value method development.  As Black Queen told Alice -
> it takes all the running you can do to keep in the same place.
>
> > I think this question also extends to adding in water molecules just
> > to make statistics look good.
>
> I never understood this attitude.  Compared to O/CNS combination on SGIs
> (which are all excellent products) refining a model using COOT/REFMAC on
> a modern Core i7 machine is a cakewalk.  Let's see - one spends from
> several months to a year or two going from gene to diffraction data, and
> spending a week carefully rebuilding in order to obtain the best most
> complete model possible is undue burden?  I am not a perfectionist by
> any measure, but deliberately not placing water molecules that you can
> place because it "does not make biological difference" can hardly be
> justified.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ed.
> >
>
> --
> Oh, suddenly throwing a giraffe into a volcano to make water is crazy?
>                                                 Julian, King of Lemurs
>

Reply via email to