The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Data processing and analysis with the autoPROC toolbox
Open accessAbstract
A typical diffraction experiment will generate many images and data sets from different crystals in a very short time. This creates a challenge for the high-throughput operation of modern synchrotron beamlines as well as for the subsequent data processing. Novice users in particular may feel overwhelmed by the tables, plots and numbers that the different data-processing programs and software packages present to them. Here, some of the more common problems that a user has to deal with when processing a set of images that will finally make up a processed data set are shown, concentrating on difficulties that may often show up during the first steps along the path of turning the experiment (i.e. data collection) into a model (i.e. interpreted electron density). Difficulties such as unexpected crystal forms, issues in crystal handling and suboptimal choices of data-collection strategies can often be dealt with, or at least diagnosed, by analysing specific data characteristics during processing. In the end, one wants to distinguish problems over which one has no immediate control once the experiment is finished from problems that can be remedied a posteriori. A new software package, autoPROC, is also presented that combines third-party processing programs with new tools and an automated workflow script that is intended to provide users with both guidance and insight into the offline processing of data affected by the difficulties mentioned above, with particular emphasis on the automated treatment of multi-sweep data sets collected on multi-axis goniostats.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Phaser crystallographic software
McCoy, A. J., Grosse-Kunstleve, R. W., Adams, P. D., Winn, M. D., Storoni, L. C., & Read, R. J. (2007) · Journal of Applied Crystallography · doi:10.1107/s0021889807021206 · Cited by 20,612
Kabsch, W. (2010) · Acta Crystallographica Section D Biological Crystallography · doi:10.1107/s0907444909047337 · Cited by 16,463
Cited by
An oral SARS-CoV-2 M pro inhibitor clinical candidate for the treatment of COVID-19
Owen, D. R., Allerton, C. M. N., Anderson, A. S., Aschenbrenner, L., Avery, M., Berritt, S., Boras, B., Cardin, R. D., Carlo, A., Coffman, K. J., et al. (2021) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.abl4784 · Cited by 2,033
An orally available non-nucleotide STING agonist with antitumor activity
Pan, B.-S., Perera, S. A., Piesvaux, J. A., Presland, J. P., Schroeder, G. K., Cumming, J. N., Trotter, B. W., Altman, M. D., Buevich, A. V., Cash, B., et al. (2020) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aba6098 · Cited by 694
Smart, O. S., Womack, T. O., Flensburg, C., Keller, P., Paciorek, W., Sharff, A., Vonrhein, C., & Bricogne, G. (2012) · Acta Crystallographica Section D Biological Crystallography · doi:10.1107/s0907444911056058 · Cited by 612
Self-citationDisordered methionine metabolism in MTAP/CDKN2A-deleted cancers leads to dependence on PRMT5
Mavrakis, K. J., McDonald, E. R., Schlabach, M. R., Billy, E., Hoffman, G. R., deWeck, A., Ruddy, D. A., Venkatesan, K., Yu, J., McAllister, G., et al. (2016) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aad5944 · Cited by 607
BAF complex vulnerabilities in cancer demonstrated via structure-based PROTAC design
Farnaby, W., Koegl, M., Roy, M. J., Whitworth, C., Diers, E., Trainor, N., Zollman, D., Steurer, S., Karolyi-Oezguer, J., Riedmueller, C., et al. (2019) · Nature Chemical Biology · doi:10.1038/s41589-019-0294-6 · Cited by 562
Metadata
- Authors
- Vonrhein, C., Flensburg, C., Keller, P., Sharff, A., Smart, O., Paciorek, W., Womack, T., & Bricogne, G.
- Venue
- Acta Crystallographica Section D Biological Crystallography
- Published
- 2011-03-18
- Volume
- 67
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 293-302
- ISSN
- 0907-4449 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2143660875
- Cited by
- 2,029
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 13.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.