Efforts to commercialize structural genomics may be limited

Of problems and opportunities-How to treat and how to not treat crystallographic fragment screening data

In their recent commentary in Protein Science, Jaskolski et al. analyzed three randomly picked diffraction data sets from fragment-screening group depositions from the PDB and, based on that, they claimed that such data are principally problematic. We demonstrate here that if such data are treated properly, none of the proclaimed criticisms persist.

Lessons from structural genomics

A decade of structural genomics, the large-scale determination of protein structures, has generated a wealth of data and many important lessons for structural biology and for future large-scale projects. These lessons include a confirmation that it is possible to construct large-scale facilities that can determine the structures of a hundred or more proteins per year, that these structures can be of high quality, and that these structures can have an important impact. Technology development has played a critical role in structural genomics, the difficulties at each step of determining a structure of a particular protein can be quantified, and validation of technologies is nearly as important as the technologies themselves. Finally, rapid deposition of data in public databases has increased the impact and usefulness of the data and international cooperation has advanced the field and improved data sharing.