Lessons from ten years of crystallization experiments at the SGC
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although protein crystallization is generally considered more art than science and remains significantly trial-and-error, large-scale data sets hold the promise of providing general learning. Observations are presented here from retrospective analyses of the strategies actively deployed for the extensive crystallization experiments at the Oxford site of the Structural Genomics Consortium (SGC), where comprehensive annotations by SGC scientists were recorded on a customized database infrastructure. The results point to the importance of using redundancy in crystallizing conditions, specifically by varying the mixing ratios of protein sample and precipitant, as well as incubation temperatures. No meaningful difference in performance could be identified between the four most widely used sparse-matrix screens, judged by the yield of crystals leading to deposited structures; this suggests that in general any comparison of screens will be meaningless without extensive cross-testing. Where protein sample is limiting, exploring more conditions has a higher likelihood of being informative by yielding hits than does redundancy of either mixing ratio or temperature. Finally, on the logistical question of how long experiments should be stored, 98% of all crystals that led to deposited structures appeared within 30 days. Overall, these analyses serve as practical guidelines for the design of initial screening experiments for new crystallization targets.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.066 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".