[RASMB] Time-stamp checks for SV data

Rhyner, Matthew N mnrhyner at beckman.com
Fri Jan 25 10:47:55 PST 2013


All-

Thank you for these messages.  We are aware of the issue and are actively investigating the root cause.

Matthew N Rhyner, PhD
Strategic Product Manager
Beckman Coulter, Inc.
Mobile: 404-313-1811


-----Original Message-----
From: rasmb-bounces at list.rasmb.org [mailto:rasmb-bounces at list.rasmb.org] On Behalf Of John Burgner
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 1:32 PM
To: rasmb at list.rasmb.org
Cc: 'Walter Stafford'
Subject: Re: [RASMB] Time-stamp checks for SV data

Taking any large time interval from a series of scans and calculating the w^2dt for that interval gives the same value calculated from the w^2t values in the file header so yes both values are incorrect.  Note also that windows stores file creation times accurate to 1 sec. 
John Burgner

-----Original Message-----
From: rasmb-bounces at list.rasmb.org [mailto:rasmb-bounces at list.rasmb.org] On Behalf Of Walter Stafford
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 10:38 AM
To: Borries Demeler
Cc: rasmb at list.rasmb.org
Subject: Re: [RASMB] Time-stamp checks for SV data

Borries,

	The time values in the file header are "elapsed time" from the the time the rotor starts turning and should not be used in analysis in any case. SEDANAL uses integral(w^2 dt), which is the correct value to use for all analyses. 

So your question is important: Are those values reported correctly or not in version 6?

Walter

_________________________
Walter Stafford
wstafford3 at walterstafford.com



_________________________
Walter Stafford
wstafford3 at walterstafford.com



On Jan 25, 2013, at 10:13, Borries Demeler wrote:

> Rodolfo:
> 
> are w^2t values reported in the file header not affected, or has that 
> not been investigated? I do not have this version to test myself, but 
> such errors would propagate into some analysis methods in UltraScan as 
> well. As far as I know the w^2t values are reported directly from the 
> DA system of the XLA, I am not certain where the time values 
> originate. The w^2t values *may* be affected as well, and that should 
> be
looked at by someone with a Proteomelab ver.6.
> 
> -borries
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 09:29:39AM -0500, Ghirlando, Rodolfo 
> (NIH/NIDDK)
[E] wrote:
>> Dear friends and colleagues,
>> 
>> It has come to our (Joy Zhao, Peter Schuck, Grzegorz Piszczek, Chad
Brautigam and myself) attention that sedimentation coefficients based on SV data collected using the ProteomeLab XLA/I version 6 acquisition software are up to 10% larger than expected (depending on the rotor speed).
>> 
>> We have traced this to a smaller than expected elapsed time stamp in 
>> the
file header. A correction for this has been implemented in SEDFIT based in part on the Windows OS file creation time stamp. This version has been released, as indicated in the forwarded email from the SEDFIT-L list below, and we will report more details on this shortly.
>> 
>> In addition Beckman Coulter has been advised of this issue.
>> 
>> Sincerely,
>> 
>> Rodolfo Ghirlando
>> 
>> 
>> FORWARDED MESSAGE
>> 
>> 
>> Dear Colleagues,
>> 
>> This is to let you know of a critical SEDFIT update with version 
>> 14.0c, which you can download from 
>> https://sedfitsedphat.nibib.nih.gov/software/Shared%20Documents/sedfi
>> t140c.zip
>> 
>> It has a very important new feature for the analysis of sedimentation
velocity: it automatically compares the elapsed times reported in the data file headers with the time differences obtained from the file creation timestamps generated by the Windows operating system on the PC.
>> 
>> Why would we need this? In the course of a joint study between our 
>> lab
and the labs of Rodolfo Ghirlando, Greg Piszczek and Chad Brautigam, we have recently discovered that data files can have elapsed time entries less than the differences from the operating system timestamp, by as much as 10%.
Obviously, if the elapsed time entry is 10% too low then this leads to s-values that are 10% too high!
>> 
>> We have double checked data from many different instruments, and
correlated this discrepancy in elapsed times with the ProteomeLab data acquisition software version 6. No time differences, or only trivial ones, were observed for instruments running earlier versions of the data acquisition software. In some runs the overall difference amounts to hours at the end of the run, and I believe that the operating system timestamp is correct. We will distribute more detailed information shortly, but want to give you already a heads-up in the meantime with this note: If you are running version 6 you may want to examine the data files, and/or time the data acquisition process yourself, to verify.
>> 
>> We have discussed this matter with our Beckman service engineer and 
>> it
appears as though the company is now addressing this issue.
>> 
>> The new SEDFIT release can fix this problem for the data analysis. 
>> First,
it automatically checks and creates a report if a systematic and significant discrepancy exists between differences in the file time-stamp and differences in the header elapsed time. If there appears to be a problem (i.e. apparent dilation factor greater than a user-defined threshold, initially defaulted to 1.005 or 0.5%), SEDFIT will create a report and then offer to write data files (under different names, of course) with time entries based on a dilation factor extracted from the file timestamps.
Subsequent analysis of these time-corrected data files should eliminate the problem, as it did perfectly for the data in our study. Such time-corrected scan files should also be the ones loaded into SEDPHAT, which will get its own update shortly.
>> 
>> Please let me know if you have any questions, or if any problems 
>> occur
with the new version.
>> 
>> Best wishes and good luck,
>> Peter
>> 
>> 
>> Peter Schuck, PhD
>> Chief, Dynamics of Macromolecular Assembly Section Laboratory of 
>> Cellular Imaging and Macromolecular Biophysics National Institute of 
>> Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, NIH
>> 13 South Drive
>> Bldg 13, Rm 3N17
>> Bethesda, MD 20892
>> phone: (301) 435-1950
>> fax: (301) 480-1242
>> email: schuckp at mail.nih.gov
>> 
>> 
> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> RASMB mailing list
>> RASMB at list.rasmb.org
>> http://list.rasmb.org/listinfo.cgi/rasmb-rasmb.org
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RASMB mailing list
> RASMB at list.rasmb.org
> http://list.rasmb.org/listinfo.cgi/rasmb-rasmb.org

_______________________________________________
RASMB mailing list
RASMB at list.rasmb.org
http://list.rasmb.org/listinfo.cgi/rasmb-rasmb.org

_______________________________________________
RASMB mailing list
RASMB at list.rasmb.org
http://list.rasmb.org/listinfo.cgi/rasmb-rasmb.org


Please be advised that this email may contain confidential 
information.  If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us 
by email by replying to the sender and delete this message.  The 
sender disclaims that the content of this email constitutes an offer 
to enter into, or the acceptance of, any agreement; provided that the 
foregoing does not invalidate the binding effect of any digital or 
other electronic reproduction of a manual signature that is included 
in any attachment.





More information about the RASMB mailing list