It seems because of the variations in reported size of SP-D dodecamers, and other multimers there is only one reasonable way to measure the different domains.  That is, as relative percents of the length of each of the hexameric arms (CRD-neck-collagen-like-Ntermini (together) collagen-like-neck-CRD.  Measuring from other people’s micrographs, and using two different electron microscopic techniques I have come up with measures from 100nm, 110, 130 and 135nm.  These differences can be due to a host of different methodologies, species, techniques. It seems expedient to adopt philosophy that measurements of different domains in SP-D are relative to 100% of the distance between the edges of CRD. That means that all future measures will be made using that distance as 100nm.  THis helps explain the slightly smaller measurements for the CRD used in estimating the LUT table peaks in the micrographs from different investigators whose techniques produce SP-D images of different diameters.

It is almost useless to have put “original magnification” as the magnification of an image in a manuscript, although I have been tempted and probably have done such, that is certainly the lazy way out and it gives absolutely no information as to the “real” magnification and enlargement of a micrograph.  case in point for crouch et al SP-D images coshadowed with collagen.

The dimensions and peak number in individual SP-D wont be adjusted….just the outer measurements of the whole.

I dont know why it didn’t strike me before but Crouch et al did not specify how they enhanced the dodecamers in their paper, clearly either they grey-brushed out the surrounding molecules, or they subjected the dodecamers they wanted to highlight to image processing. It makes a huge difference whether they enhanced the whole length of the dodecamers evenly or whether they used a contrast tool just sporadically over the micrograph to highlight the SP-D.  That is a huge deletion from the materials and methods.