Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25286836›Full record

ArticleActa crystallographica. Section D, Biological crystallography2014

Experiences with making diffraction image data available: what metadata do we need to archive?

Loes M J Kroon-Batenburg, John R Helliwell

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Acta crystallographica. Section D, Biological crystallography, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Making your raw data available to the macromolecular crystallography community.Acta crystallographica. Section F, Structural biology communications · 2023
    Article
  3. IUCrData · 2022
    Article
  4. Raw diffraction data are our ground truth from which all subsequent workflows develop.Acta crystallographica. Section D, Structural biology · 2022
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Submission of structural biology data for review purposes.Acta crystallographica. Section D, Structural biology · 2021
    Article
  7. Submission of structural biology data for review purposes.Acta crystallographica. Section F, Structural biology communications · 2021
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Findable Accessible Interoperable Re-usable (FAIR) diffraction data are coming to protein crystallography.Acta crystallographica. Section F, Structural biology communications · 2019
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. A public database of macromolecular diffraction experiments.Acta crystallographica. Section D, Structural biology · 2016
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. How to make deposition of images a reality.Acta crystallographica. Section D, Biological crystallography · 2014
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Loes M J Kroon-BatenburgCrystal and Structural Chemistry, Bijvoet Center for Biomolecular Research, Utrecht University, Padualaan 8, 3584 CH Utrecht, The Netherlands.
John R HelliwellSchool of Chemistry, Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Manchester, Brunswick Street, Manchester M14 9PL, England.
University of Manchester · GBUtrecht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recently, the IUCr (International Union of Crystallography) initiated the formation of a Diffraction Data Deposition Working Group with the aim of developing standards for the representation of raw diffraction data associated with the publication of structural papers. Archiving of raw data serves several goals: to improve the record of science, to verify the reproducibility and to allow detailed checks of scientific data, safeguarding against fraud and to allow reanalysis with future improved techniques. A means of studying this issue is to submit exemplar publications with associated raw data and metadata. In a recent study of the binding of cisplatin and carboplatin to histidine in lysozyme crystals under several conditions, the possible effects of the equipment and X-ray diffraction data-processing software on the occupancies and B factors of the bound Pt compounds were compared. Initially, 35.3 GB of data were transferred from Manchester to Utrecht to be processed with EVAL. A detailed description and discussion of the availability of metadata was published in a paper that was linked to a local raw data archive at Utrecht University and also mirrored at the TARDIS raw diffraction data archive in Australia. By making these raw diffraction data sets available with the article, it is possible for the diffraction community to make their own evaluation. This led to one of the authors of XDS (K. Diederichs) to re-integrate the data from crystals that supposedly solely contained bound carboplatin, resulting in the analysis of partially occupied chlorine anomalous electron densities near the Pt-binding sites and the use of several criteria to more carefully assess the diffraction resolution limit. General arguments for archiving raw data, the possibilities of doing so and the requirement of resources are discussed. The problems associated with a partially unknown experimental setup, which preferably should be available as metadata, is discussed. Current thoughts on data compression are summarized, which could be a solution especially for pixel-device data sets with fine slicing that may otherwise present an unmanageable amount of data.

Indexed as

Crystallography, X-RayAustraliaDatabases, ChemicalData CurationImage Processing, Computer-AssistedSocieties, ScientificSoftwareX-Ray Diffractiondata archivingdata exchangederived datametadataprocessed dataraw data

Identifiers

PMID25286836
PMCPMC4187998
OpenAlexW2167868940

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.