On Oct 27, 2011, at 11:56 PM, James Stroud wrote: > This is a poor criterion on which to base any conclusions or decisions. We > can blame the lack of examples on unavailability of the data.
Agreed. Reprocessing the data resulting in a a different biological result is my personal reason and motivates me to support raw data deposition. However, I'm not the one that needs convincing.. it's the other PI's/graduate students/postdocs (who may see MX as a simple tool to get an answer for some larger question), who need to see the value of depositing raw MX images. The point of my email is to elicit other people's reasons why raw data deposition is necessary. > Right now, I'd love to get my hands on the raw images for a particular cryoEM > data set, but they are not available--only the maps. But the maps assume one > symmetry and I have a hypothesis that the true symmetry is different. I could > test my hypothesis by reprocessing the data were it available. and thank you for providing yours . F --------------------------------------------- Francis E. Reyes M.Sc. 215 UCB University of Colorado at Boulder
