ArticlePloS one2025
Effect of crystal-to-detector distance shift on data processing in serial crystallography.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Serial femtosecond crystallography data processing at the global science data hub center at KISTI.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Serial crystallography (SX) is an emerging technique to determine the room-temperature structure of macromolecules while minimizing any radiation damage. In SX, many crystals are continuously delivered to the X-ray interaction points. Crystal-to-detector distance (CTDD), an important data processing parameter, changes during sample delivery. However, the ways in which these variations affect the data quality remain unclear. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the impact of CTDD accuracy on SX data quality. Serial synchrotron crystallographic data of hen egg white lysozyme (HEWL) and glucose isomerase (GI) were processed at various CTDDs using three indexing algorithms. The CTDD that yielded the maximum number of indexed images differed from the optimized CTDD, and the resulting indexing trends varied depending on the algorithm used. The indexed data near the actual CTDD exhibited a Gaussian unit cell distribution pattern; however, this pattern became distorted as the CTDD deviated from the actual CTDD value, resulting in changes in the indexed unit cell dimensions. The phase problem was successfully solved even when HEWL and GI data deviated by ±10 mm from the actual CTDD, excluding one dataset. For HEWL processed via MOSFLM, structure refinement statistics maintained acceptable Rfree values despite a ± 10 mm deviation; however, data quality deteriorated with increasing deviation from the actual CTDD. Collectively, these results provide valuable insights for efficient SX data processing and interpretation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.