[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: microsymposia

• To: Multiple recipients of list <ecacomsig@iucr.org>
• Subject: Re: microsymposia
• From: Anastassis Perrakis <perrakis@embl-grenoble.fr>
• Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 09:11:41 +0100 (BST)

> macromolecules" (while persomally I am from macromolecules). My strong
> feeling is that there is a lot of information to be exchanged between the
> two artificially maintained groups and we should put these groups of
> researches together and do not push them to different sides.

Although interesting and appealing, this view is in my personal opinion, a bit
unrealistic:
To try and explain why, I will carry the argument a bit further:
'Macromolecular crystallography' itself is being carried in two directions:
One that uses high resolution structures to answer questions predominantly of
a 'chemical nature' while the other direction aims for 'any structure' that would
explain
'biological function'. My personal experience is that its hard enough to keep this
worlds
together. So much more for small molecule collegues. The 'two groups' are not
artificial at all.
We may even be witnessing the dawn of a third one ... or the 'split' of the MacroX
group
to the 'mechanism/action' group and the 'big complexes' group ...

The level of detail and the expected accuracy that is expected and is used to answer
predominately
different questions, dictates that the techniques for the analysis are too diverge
to
be discussed in parallel and keep high the interest of both communities.


    Tassos

Reply to: [list | sender only]

• Prev by Date: microsymposia
• Next by Date: 2 groups exist
• Prev by thread: microsymposia
• Next by thread: Request-for-Ideas-and-Comments
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread