<div dir="ltr">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span>Hi
Carlos Oscar and Jose-Maria, <span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span>I
choose to answer you guys first, because it will take little of my time to counter
your criticism and because I have long since been less than amused by your published,
ill-conceived criticism:<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;text-align:justify;line-height:107%;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">“<b><i>Marin, I always suffer with your
reference to sloppy statistics. If we take your paper of 2005 where the 1/2 bit
criterion was proposed, Eqs. 4 to 15 have completely ignored the fact that you
are dealing with Fourier components, that are complex numbers, and consequently
you have to deal with random variables that have TWO components, which moreover
the real and imaginary part are not independent and, in their turn, they are
not independent of the nearby Fourier coefficients so that for computing radial
averages you would need to account for the correlation among coefficients</i></b>”<em><span style="font-style:normal"><span></span></span></em></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span>I had seen this argumentation
against our (2005) paper in your manuscript/paper years back. I was so stunned
by the level of misunderstanding expressed in your manuscript that I chose not
to spend any time reacting to those statements. Now that you choose to so
openly display your thoughts on the matter, I have no other choice than to
spell out your errors in public.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span>All complex arrays
in our 2005 paper are Hermitian (since they are the FTs of real data), and so
are all their inner products. In all the integrals over rings one always
averages a complex Fourier-space voxel with its Hermitian conjugate yielding <b><i>ONE</i></b> real value (times two)! <span> </span>Without that Hermitian property, FRCs and FSCs,
which are real normalised correlation functions would not even have been
possible. I was - and still am - stunned by this level of misunderstanding!<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span>This is a blatant blunder that you are propagating over years, a blunder that does not do any
good to your reputation, yet also a blunder that has probably damaged to our
research income. The fact that you can divulgate such rubbish and leave it out
there for years for referees to read (who are possibly not as well educated in
physics and mathematics) will do – and may already have done – damage to our
research.<span> </span>An apology is appropriate but an
apology is not enough. <span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span>Maybe you should
ask your granting agencies how to transfer 25% of your grant income to our
research, in compensation of damages created by your blunder!<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span>Success with your
request!<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span>Marin<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span>PS. You have also
missed that our 2005 paper explicitly includes the influence of the size of the
object within the sampling box (your: “</span><b><i>they are not independent of the
nearby Fourier coefficients</i></b><span>”).
I remain flabbergasted.<span></span></span></p>
</div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 3:15 PM Carlos Oscar Sorzano <<a href="mailto:coss@cnb.csic.es">coss@cnb.csic.es</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>Dear all,</p>
<p>I always try to refrain myself from getting into these
discussions, but I cannot resist more the temptation. Here are
some more ideas that I hope bring more light than confusion:</p>
<p>- There must be some functional relationship between the FSC and
the SNR, but the exact analytical form of this relationship is
unknown (I suspect that it must be at least monotonic, the worse
the SNR, the worse FSC; but even this is difficult to prove). The
relationship we normally use FSC=SNR/(1+SNR) was derived in a
context that does not apply to CryoEM (1D stationary signals in
real space; our molecules are not stationary), and consequently
any reasoning of any threshold based on this relationship is
incorrect (see our review).</p>
<p>- Still, as long as we all use the same threshold, the reported
resolutions are comparable to each other. In that regard, I am
happy that we have set 0.143 (although any other number would have
served the purpose) as the standard.</p>
<p>- I totally agree with Steve that the full FSC is much more
informative than its crossing with the threshold. Specially,
because we should be much more worried about its behavior when it
has high values than when it has low values. Before crossing the
threshold it should be as high as possible, and that is the "true
measure" of goodness of the map. When it crosses the threshold of
0.143, it has too low SNR, and by definition, that is a very
unstable part of the FSC, resulting in relatively unstable reports
of resolution. We made some tests about the variability of the FSC
(refining random splits of the dataset), trying to put the error
bars that Steve was asking for, and it turned out to be pretty
reproducible (rather low variance except in the region when it
crosses the threshold) as long as the dataset was large enough
(which is the current state).</p>
<p>- @Marin, I always suffer with your reference to sloppy
statistics. If we take your paper of 2005 where the 1/2 bit
criterion was proposed (<a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1047847705001292" target="_blank">https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1047847705001292</a>),
Eqs. 4 to 15 have completely ignored the fact that you are dealing
with Fourier components, that are complex numbers, and
consequently you have to deal with random variables that have two
components, which moreover the real and imaginary part are not
independent and, in their turn, they are not independent of the
nearby Fourier coefficients so that for computing radial averages
you would need to account for the correlation among coefficients (<a href="https://www.aimspress.com/fileOther/PDF/biophysics/20150102.pdf" target="_blank">https://www.aimspress.com/fileOther/PDF/biophysics/20150102.pdf</a>).
For properly dealing the statistics, at least one needs to carry
out a two-dimensional reasoning, including the complex conjugate
multiplication which is all missing in your derivation, rather
than treating everything as one-dimensional, real valued random
variables. Additionally, embedded in your whole reasoning is the
idea that the expected value of a ratio is the ratio of the
expected values, that is a 0-th order Taylor approximation of the
mean of the distribution of a ratio between two random variables.
Finally, I always find an extreme difficulty to understand the 1
bit or 1/2 bit criteria, that is, what is the relationship between
the channel's capacity formula of Shannon (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon%E2%80%93Hartley_theorem" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon%E2%80%93Hartley_theorem</a>)
and our FSC (we do not have any channel through which we are
"transmitting" our volume, although it is true we have a model
y=x+n that is the same as in signal transmission, it is not true
that the average information of a signal is log2(1+SNR); for me,
the only relationship is that the SNR appears in both formulas,
FSC and channel capacity, but that does not automatically make
them comparable and interchangeble). This is not a criticism on
your work. I think the FSC is a very useful tool to measure some
properties of the reconstruction process and the quality of the
dataset (not everything is measured by the FSC) and it also has
its drawbacks (for instance, systematic errors are rewarded by the
FSC as they are reproducible in both halves). Moreover, I think
you are an extremely intelligent person, who I consider a good
friend, with a very good intuition about image processing and who
has brought very interesting ideas and methodologies into the
field. Only that we cannot become crazy about the FSC threshold
and the reported resolution, as the most interesting part of the
FSC is not when it is low, but when it is high.</p>
<p>I hope I can keep refraining myself in the future :-)</p>
<p>Cheers, Carlos Oscar<br>
</p>
<p>On 2/21/20 6:19 PM, Ludtke, Steven J. wrote:<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite">
I've been steadfastly refusing to get myself dragged in this time,
but with this very sensible statement (which I am largely in
agreement with), I thought I'd throw in one thought, just to stir
the pot a little more.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This is not a new idea, but I think it is the most
sensible strategy I've heard proposed, and addresses Marin's
concerns in a more conventional way. What we are talking about
here is the statistical noise present in the FSC curves
themselves. Viewed from the framework of traditional error
analysis and propagation of uncertainties, which pretty much
every scientist should be familiar with since high-school, (and
thus would not be confusing to the non statisticians) the
'correct' solution to this issue is not to adjust the threshold,
but to present FSC curves with error bars. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>One can then use a fixed threshold at a level based
on expectation values, and simply produce a resolution value
which also has an associated uncertainty. This is much better
than using a variable threshold and still producing a single
number with no uncertainty estimate! Not only does this
approach account for the statistical noise in the FSC curve, but
it also should stop people from reporting resolutions as 2.3397
Å, as it would be silly to say 2.3397 +- 0.2. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The cross terms are not ignored, but are used in the
production of the error bars. This is a very simple approach,
which is certainly closer to being correct than the fixed
threshold without error-bars approach, and it solves many of the
issues we have with resolution reporting people do. Of course
we still have people who will insist that 3.2+-0.2 is better
than 3.3+-0.2, but there isn't much you can do about them...
(other than beat them over the head with a statistics textbook).</div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The caveat, of course, is that like all
propagation of uncertainty that it is a linear approximation,
and the correlation axis isn't linear, so the typical Normal
distributions with linear propagation used to justify
propagation of uncertainty aren't _strictly_ true. However,
the approximation is fine as long as the error bars are
reasonably small compared to the -1 to 1 range of the
correlation axis. Each individual error bar is computed around
its expectation value, so the overall nonlinearity of the
correlation isn't a concern.</div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
<div>
<div dir="auto" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<div dir="auto" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<div dir="auto" style="overflow-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-variant-caps:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<font face="Courier"><span style="font-size:14px">--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
Steven Ludtke, Ph.D. <<a href="mailto:sludtke@bcm.edu" target="_blank">sludtke@bcm.edu</a>>
Baylor College
of Medicine <br>
Charles C. Bell Jr., Professor of
Structural Biology<br>
Dept. of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
(<a href="http://www.bcm.edu/biochem" target="_blank">www.bcm.edu/biochem</a>)<br>
Academic Director, CryoEM Core
(<a href="http://cryoem.bcm.edu" target="_blank">cryoem.bcm.edu</a>)<br>
Co-Director CIBR Center
(<a href="http://www.bcm.edu/research/cibr" target="_blank">www.bcm.edu/research/cibr</a>)<br>
<br>
</span></font><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>On Feb 21, 2020, at 10:34 AM, Alexis Rohou
<<a href="mailto:a.rohou@gmail.com" target="_blank">a.rohou@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br>
<div><font style="font-family:Helvetica;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration:none" size="2"><b>***CAUTION:*** This email is not from a
BCM Source. Only click links or open attachments
you know are safe.</b></font><span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:18px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration:none;float:none;display:inline"></span>
<hr style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:18px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration:none">
<div dir="ltr" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:18px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration:none">
Hi all,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>For those bewildered by Marin's
insistence that everyone's been messing up their
stats since the bronze age, I'd like to offer what
my understanding of the situation. More details in
this thread from a few years ago on the exact same
topic: </div>
<div><a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mail.ncmir.ucsd.edu_pipermail_3dem_2015-2DAugust_003939.html&d=DwMFaQ&c=ZQs-KZ8oxEw0p81sqgiaRA&r=Dk5VoQQ-wINYVssLMZihyC5Dj_sWYKxCyKz9E4Lp3gc&m=UWn2RUCMENrXjn3JLSwlIU6Zmp_JYnRrXesjtsM1u2E&s=CZ3YcAV1LVKXsLT0KjCIRby6j3XPA6GqZcOVP3nMyK0&e=" target="_blank">https://mail.ncmir.ucsd.edu/pipermail/3dem/2015-August/003939.html</a><br>
</div>
<div><a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mail.ncmir.ucsd.edu_pipermail_3dem_2015-2DAugust_003944.html&d=DwMFaQ&c=ZQs-KZ8oxEw0p81sqgiaRA&r=Dk5VoQQ-wINYVssLMZihyC5Dj_sWYKxCyKz9E4Lp3gc&m=UWn2RUCMENrXjn3JLSwlIU6Zmp_JYnRrXesjtsM1u2E&s=oG6lGnei74jC5VVGsfFAdiTpIxrZhs_IH2mH0re5QRM&e=" target="_blank">https://mail.ncmir.ucsd.edu/pipermail/3dem/2015-August/003944.html</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Notwithstanding notational problems
(e.g. strict equations as opposed to approximation
symbols, or omission of symbols to denote
estimation), I believe Frank & Al-Ali and
"descendent" papers (e.g. appendix of Rosenthal
& Henderson 2003) are fine. The cross terms
that Marin is agitated about indeed do in fact
have an expectation value of 0.0 (in the ensemble;
if the experiment were performed an infinite
number of times with different realizations of
noise). I don't believe Pawel or Jose Maria or any
of the other authors really believe that the
cross-terms are orthogonal.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>When N (the number of independent
Fouier voxels in a shell) is large enough,
mean(Signal x Noise) ~ 0.0 is only an
approximation, but a pretty good one, even for a
single FSC experiment. This is why, in my book,
derivations that depend on Frank & Al-Ali are
OK, under the strict assumption that N is large.
Numerically, this becomes apparent when Marin's
half-bit criterion is plotted - asymptotically it
has the same behavior as a constant threshold.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>So, is Marin wrong to worry about
this? No, I don't think so. There are indeed cases
where the assumption of large N is broken. And
under those circumstances, any fixed threshold
(0.143, 0.5, whatever) is dangerous. This is
illustrated in figures of van Heel & Schatz
(2005). Small boxes, high-symmetry, small objects
in large boxes, and a number of other conditions
can make fixed thresholds dangerous.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>It would indeed be better to use a
non-fixed threshold. So why am I not using the
1/2-bit criterion in my own work? While
numerically it behaves well at most resolution
ranges, I was not convinced by Marin's derivation
in 2005. Philosophically though, I think he's
right - we should aim for FSC thresholds that are
more robust to the kinds of edge cases mentioned
above. It would be the right thing to do.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Hope this helps,</div>
<div>Alexis </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<br style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:18px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration:none">
<div class="gmail_quote" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:18px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration:none">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Feb 16,
2020 at 9:00 AM Penczek, Pawel A <<a href="mailto:Pawel.A.Penczek@uth.tmc.edu" target="_blank">Pawel.A.Penczek@uth.tmc.edu</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="auto">Marin,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The statistics in 2010 review is
fine. You may disagree with assumptions, but I
can assure you the “statistics” (as you call
it) is fine. Careful reading of the paper
would reveal to you this much. <br>
<br>
<div dir="ltr">Regards,
<div>Pawel</div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<blockquote type="cite">On Feb 16,
2020, at 10:38 AM, Marin van Heel <<a href="mailto:marin.vanheel@googlemail.com" target="_blank">marin.vanheel@googlemail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<p><font size="3" face="arial, sans-serif" color="Red"><strong>**** EXTERNAL EMAIL ****</strong></font></p>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Dear Pawel and All others
....
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:17.12px;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">
<br>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">
This 2010 review is - unfortunately
- largely based on the flawed
statistics I mentioned before,
namely on the a priori assumption
that the inner product of a signal
vector and a noise vector are ZERO
(an orthogonality assumption). The
(Frank & Al-Ali 1975) paper we
have refuted on a number of
occasions (for example in 2005, and
most recently in our BioRxiv paper)
but you still take that as the
correct relation between SNR and FRC
(and you never cite the
criticism...). <span></span></p>
<span></span></div>
<div>Sorry</div>
<div>Marin<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On
Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 10:42 AM Penczek,
Pawel A <<a href="mailto:Pawel.A.Penczek@uth.tmc.edu" target="_blank">Pawel.A.Penczek@uth.tmc.edu</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="auto">
<div dir="ltr">Dear Teige,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I am wondering
whether you are familiar with</div>
<div>
<h2 style="box-sizing:border-box;font-family:"Lucida Grande","Helvetica Neue",Helvetica,Arial;font-size:20px;margin:8px auto;line-height:24px">
<br>
</h2>
<h2 style="box-sizing:border-box;font-family:"Lucida Grande","Helvetica Neue",Helvetica,Arial;font-size:20px;margin:8px auto;line-height:24px">
Resolution measures in
molecular electron microscopy.</h2>
<div id="gmail-m_3499588197652198442gmail-m_-325618919662780292gmail-m_4473107327319981263gmail-m_-4642610284911275282cit_summary" style="box-sizing:border-box;font-size:14px;color:rgb(39,39,39);font-family:Arial">
<div style="box-sizing:border-box">Penczek
PA. Methods Enzymol. 2010.</div>
</div>
<div id="gmail-m_3499588197652198442gmail-m_-325618919662780292gmail-m_4473107327319981263gmail-m_-4642610284911275282cit_full" style="box-sizing:border-box;font-size:14px;color:rgb(39,39,39);font-family:Arial">
<h3 style="box-sizing:border-box;font-family:"Lucida Grande","Helvetica Neue",Helvetica,Arial;margin-bottom:0px;font-size:14px">
Citation</h3>
<p style="box-sizing:border-box;margin:2px 0px">Methods
Enzymol. 2010;482:73-100.
doi:
10.1016/S0076-6879(10)82003-8.</p>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>You will find
there answers to all questions
you asked and much more. </div>
<br>
<div dir="ltr">Regards,
<div>Pawel Penczek</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<br>
<div dir="ltr">Regards,
<div>Pawel</div>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
3dem mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:3dem@ncmir.ucsd.edu" target="_blank">3dem@ncmir.ucsd.edu</a><br>
<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mail.ncmir.ucsd.edu_mailman_listinfo_3dem&d=DwMFaQ&c=bKRySV-ouEg_AT-w2QWsTdd9X__KYh9Eq2fdmQDVZgw&r=yEYHb4SF2vvMq3W-iluu41LlHcFadz4Ekzr3_bT4-qI&m=3-TZcohYbZGHCQ7azF9_fgEJmssbBksaI7ESb0VIk1Y&s=XHMq9Q6Zwa69NL8kzFbmaLmZA9M33U01tBE6iAtQ140&e=" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mail.ncmir.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/3dem</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
3dem mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:3dem@ncmir.ucsd.edu" target="_blank">3dem@ncmir.ucsd.edu</a><br>
<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mail.ncmir.ucsd.edu_mailman_listinfo_3dem&d=DwMFaQ&c=ZQs-KZ8oxEw0p81sqgiaRA&r=Dk5VoQQ-wINYVssLMZihyC5Dj_sWYKxCyKz9E4Lp3gc&m=UWn2RUCMENrXjn3JLSwlIU6Zmp_JYnRrXesjtsM1u2E&s=TeEhUNYC5v59HGWMrPQCMaGK5opuX-NIG2mJvGLuiKA&e=" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mail.ncmir.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/3dem</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:18px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration:none;float:none;display:inline">_______________________________________________</span><br style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:18px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration:none">
<span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:18px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration:none;float:none;display:inline">3dem mailing list</span><br style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:18px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration:none">
<a href="mailto:3dem@ncmir.ucsd.edu" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:18px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px" target="_blank">3dem@ncmir.ucsd.edu</a><br style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:18px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration:none">
<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mail.ncmir.ucsd.edu_mailman_listinfo_3dem&d=DwICAg&c=ZQs-KZ8oxEw0p81sqgiaRA&r=Dk5VoQQ-wINYVssLMZihyC5Dj_sWYKxCyKz9E4Lp3gc&m=UWn2RUCMENrXjn3JLSwlIU6Zmp_JYnRrXesjtsM1u2E&s=TeEhUNYC5v59HGWMrPQCMaGK5opuX-NIG2mJvGLuiKA&e=" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:18px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px" target="_blank">https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mail.ncmir.ucsd.edu_mailman_listinfo_3dem&d=DwICAg&c=ZQs-KZ8oxEw0p81sqgiaRA&r=Dk5VoQQ-wINYVssLMZihyC5Dj_sWYKxCyKz9E4Lp3gc&m=UWn2RUCMENrXjn3JLSwlIU6Zmp_JYnRrXesjtsM1u2E&s=TeEhUNYC5v59HGWMrPQCMaGK5opuX-NIG2mJvGLuiKA&e=</a><span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:18px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration:none;float:none;display:inline"></span></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<pre>_______________________________________________
3dem mailing list
<a href="mailto:3dem@ncmir.ucsd.edu" target="_blank">3dem@ncmir.ucsd.edu</a>
<a href="https://mail.ncmir.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/3dem" target="_blank">https://mail.ncmir.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/3dem</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote></div>