Dear Jim, I guess you entered the ABC transporter zone.
You say you use the structure to show the movement of helices. One important point is whether this structure is based on a molecular replacement solution, or it was built from experimental phases. There are numerous cases where adding some experimental phasing helped to convince the editors. Good luck, Rob Meijers Synchrotron Soleil Jim Naismith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dear All, I have an interesting problem, we have a 3.45A structure of a membrane protein. We have just been told that the structure is "too low resolution to be considered as the uncertainty is too high". We use the structure to identify helices which have moved. Is there a blanket ban on low res structure operating at the moment? The structure was refined extremely tightly, MolPROB 98th centile. (I will happily send the data and structure to anyone who wishes to validate.) The editors simply ignored everything but the res limit (I/sI in the last shell was 1.8 with a redundancy of 4) Of course we will begin the usual journal shopping. However, does anyone know how to convince editors and non-xtallographers that 3.45A is valid? Best Jim James H. Naismith FRSE |Research mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Professor of Chemical Biology |Teaching mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Centre for Biomolecular Sciences |Office: 1334-463792 The North Haugh |Fax : 1334-467229 The University |Lab : 1334-467245 St. Andrews |In UK add 0 to start of number Fife Scotland, U.K., KY16 9ST |http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~strucbio The University of St Andrews is a charity registered in Scotland : No SC013532 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com