Index:
[thread]
[date]
[subject]
[author]
From: Jeff Hansen <hansen@bioc02.uthscsa.edu>
To : rasmb@bbri.eri.harvard.edu
Date: Tue, 3 May 94 12:28 GMT
Accomplishing long-term goals
Greetings from Texas -
This is both a specific response to Emory's message of 4/29, as well as a
general commentary about how the XL-A community can work together to best
accomplish our long-term goals and desires.
First Emory's message. There is no question that investigators in the
protein folding and stability fields are rapidly embracing the analytical
ultracentrifuge, and in almost every case would like to perform experiments
between 40-100*C. For example, Andy Robertson (University of Iowa) and I
are currently determining the influence of temperature and denaturants on
the distribution of monomers and small aggregates of the CheY protein.
Results obtained between 5-40*C are compelling, but we are hampered by
our inability to extend the analyses above 40*C (where most of the action
is). Barry Nall in my department is in the same situation. All three of us
and I'm sure many others would wholeheartedly support development of high
temperature capabilities of the XL-A.
I think this issue also illustrates two important general problems that must
be addressed. First, simply deciding that a given modification is necessary
isn't enough. We must also figure out how to convince Beckman to actually
do it. Take the current inability to set the XL-A run temperature to
anything less than whole degrees. Speaking for a department that has
performed over 500 sedimentation velocity runs in the last 18 months, we are
ENORMOUSLY FRUSTRATED by this design oversight. For almost two years, we
have begged Beckman to modify the XL component of the XL-A to allow
temperature settings at 0.1 degree intervals. During this time, we have
been told repeatedly that many other sedimentation velocity practitioners
have said the same thing. Nonetheless, despite the fact that such a
modification is relatively trivial, nothing has been done and there has been
no indication that anything will be accomplished anytime soon. Another
example that falls into this category is the user interface. The lack of
response has nothing to do with Don, Paul, Alan, Barney Hedges et al., who
are clearly on our side. Nonetheless, if corporate Beckman is unwilling (or
unable) to correct such trivial design oversights, how are we going to
convince them to develop much more sophisticated systems such as high
temperature capabilities, etc. I think Emory hit the nail on the head when
he suggested that we present these suggestions to Beckman collectively. If
30 or 40 XL-A owners unite to make a request, we represent a group of
individuals that has recently pumped 5-6 million dollars into Beckman's
accounts. I don't know if this will work, but the individual approach seems
to have failed miserably.
Secondly, I think it is very important that the XL-A users worldwide take
the next 3-6 months to develop a stategic long-term plan ("wish list") for
the XL-A that encompasses ALL of the design modifications that we would
like to see made. The problem with individual modifications that are strung
out over a long period of time is one of finances, i.e., where is everyone
going to get the money to continually upgrade our instruments with expensive
modifications. Our department is currently facing this problem with the
interference optical system. For example, one of our two XL-A's was
purchased with an NIH shared instrumentation grant. If interference optics
and any other putative upgrades such as high temperature capabilities had
been available from the beginning, we could have simply submitted a higher
budget and obtained a "complete" instrument from this single source.
However, because the NIH SIG program does not allow supplemental
applications, we are scrambling to figure out how to come up with the many
tens of thousands of dollars required to upgrade even just one of our
machines. For the sake of future XL-A purchasers, particularly those that
are obtaining their funds through granting agencies, I think we should
present Beckman with a COMPLETE list of design modifications that should be
SIMULTANEOUSLY incorporated into the next generation of XL-A.
Well, if nothing else this has hopefully given everyone lots to think about.
I realize that there are no easy answers here, but that is why we should
begin discussing these issues ASAP. I'll be interested in hearing what
y'all have to say.
Jeff Hansen
Department of Biochemistry
University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio
Index:
[thread]
[date]
[subject]
[author]