Crystallogenesis Research for Biology in the Last Two Decades as Seen from the International Conferences on the Crystallization of Biological Macromolecules
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The series of 11 International Conferences on the Crystallization of Biological Macromolecules (ICCBM) took place over the period 1986–2006 in the USA (four times), Germany (two times), China, France, Japan, Spain, and lastly the 11th in Canada in Quebec City. Here we review the first 10 ICCBMs. Their focus was to bring rational approaches to the field of protein crystal growth and thus overcome the rate-limiting step in macromolecular X-ray crystallography. This survey summarizes how the ICCBM series contributed to the emergence of the science of biocrystallogenesis. This was achieved through the joint efforts of scientists from the small molecule crystal growth community and from biochemists, biophysicists, and protein crystallographers. Highlights from each conference are discussed, and scientific synergies are emphasized. While the first conferences focused on fundamentals, especially from the standpoint of physics and biochemical considerations, the more recent conferences stressed applications in structural biology, to advanced methods of crystallization, and of crystal quality improvement. Particular attention will be given to themes that were recurrent through all the ICCBMs: purity and impurities, solution properties of macromolecules under precrystallization conditions, microgravity and assessment of crystal quality, as well as specific trends of practical interest to structural biology.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it