Skip to main content
Acta Crystallographica Section A: Foundations and Advances logoLink to Acta Crystallographica Section A: Foundations and Advances
. 2023 Jul 24;79(Pt 5):480–484. doi: 10.1107/S2053273323003200

Approximating lattice similarity

Lawrence C Andrews a,*, Herbert J Bernstein b, Nicholas K Sauter c
Editor: M I Aroyod
PMCID: PMC10483589  PMID: 37485824

A method is proposed for transforming unit cells for a group of crystals so that they all appear as similar as possible to a selected cell.

Keywords: lattice matching, Delaunay, Delone, Niggli, Selling

Abstract

A method is proposed for choosing unit cells for a group of crystals so that they all appear as nearly similar as possible to a selected cell. Related unit cells with varying cell parameters or indexed with different lattice centering can be accommodated.

1. Introduction

A common problem in crystallography is to provide a list of the unit cells of several (or many) crystals so that they can be visually compared, making it easier to identify meaningful clusters of crystals of related morphology. Collections of experimental unit-cell parameters have been created based on similarity of morphology [for example, see Donnay et al. (1963)] and, in recent years, the clustering of unit cells from the myriad of images in serial crystallography has become increasingly important (Keable et al., 2021). We have created a method to group unit cells to serve these needs and have addressed this problem in the space S 6 (Andrews et al., 2019b ).

2. Background and notation

2.1. The space S 6

Andrews et al. (2019b ) introduced the space S 6 as an alternative representation of crystallographic lattices. The space is defined in terms of the ‘Selling scalars’ used in Selling reduction (Selling, 1874) and by Delaunay (1932; note that in his later publications, Boris Delaunay used the more accurately transliterated version of his surname, Delone) for the classification of lattices. A point s in S 6 is defined by

2.1.

where d = −abc. As a mnemonic to remember the order, the terms involve, in order, α, β, γ, a, b, c.

2.2. Similarity

In Euclidean geometry, two objects are described as ‘similar’ if they are identical except for a scale factor; see Euclid’s work as translated by Heath (1956) and a longer description in Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Similarity_(geometry)&oldid=1097100366). In crystallography, we can say that all face-centered cubic unit cells are similar (assuming that they are in the same presentation). On the other hand, not all primitive orthorhombic unit cells are similar. In a metric space, we refer to two objects as ‘approximately similar’ if the distance between them after scaling to the same size is, in some sense, small, e.g. commensurate with the experimental errors in determination of the unit cells. The algorithm below attempts to find the representation of one cell that is nearest to similar to some other cell. For a given reference cell, the probe cell will be transformed to other choices of unit cell that would generate the probe’s lattice and the closest match to the reference will be chosen for the result. Finally, the lattice centering of the reference cell will be restored (if necessary).

3. Algorithm

We start with a collection of experimental unit cells. From among them, we select or create the ‘reference’ cell; that is, the one to which all the rest will be matched as closely as possible.

We transform the reference cell by many operations in the course of exploring alternative lattice representations. For each newly generated lattice representation, we accumulate the transformations needed to convert back to the original reference cell. All of these operations are performed in S 6. (The alternative space, G 6, is less convenient because the G 6 fundamental unit is non-convex.) To avoid duplication, for each step we only accumulate transformations that have not already been found.

To begin, each input cell is transformed to the S 6 representation and then Selling-reduced [see Delaunay (1932) and Andrews et al. (2019a ), the latter of which discusses the lesser complexity of Selling reduction and includes pseudocode]. As there is a need to be able to reverse the reduction, the reduction transformation is saved for use in later stages.

The following transformations of the reference will be done in three stages.

First, the 24 S 6 reflections are applied (Andrews et al., 2019b ) and the results stored. The store of S 6 vectors and their generating matrices holds 24 entries each at that point.

Because the 24 operations defining reflection are unitary, and in S 6 they are simply perturbations of the six values, they retain the values and signs of the six values, simply rearranging the six scalars.

Next, the boundary (reduction) transformations (Andrews et al., 2019b ) are applied to the results of the previous step. The 24 reflections are then applied again. In each step, only newly found results are stored. These last two steps are repeated at least once in order to gain better coverage of possibly useful transformations. The counts of entries for each iteration are 24, 1566, 45 876 and finally 1 016 726. Three iterations, i.e. 45 876 entries, have been sufficient in test cases to date.

Although the six scalars are all negative for Selling-reduced unit cells, the boundary transformations are not unitary and so do not retain the six negative values.

Finally, all the accumulated transformed representations of the reference cell must be rescaled and the saved transformations inverted. The S 6 vectors are all scaled to the same length (see Section 4) and the transformation matrix attached to each vector is inverted, thereby yielding the operation to return a lattice to the vicinity of the original reference cell. For more efficient searching in this final step, it is helpful to use a nearest-neighbor search function such as NearTree (Andrews & Bernstein, 2016).

4. Why must the S 6 vectors be scaled?

All similar lattices lie on lines that go through the origin of S 6. Fig. 1 shows the distinction between the case where the transformed points are all scaled to be at the same distance from the origin as the reference point [Fig. 1(a)] and the case where they are not [Fig. 1(b)]. Fig. 2 illustrates the way in which scaling all the reference points to the same 6-spherical surface defines the zones of approximate similarity. Any non-zero scale factor will produce the same correct result. In S 6 the reflections maintain the distance from the origin but the boundary transformations may not. To repeat: the only way to guarantee that the separation line for two regions goes through the origin is to have all the points at the same radius.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

(a) The case where the transformed point T has been scaled to be at the same distance from the origin as the reference point R. (b) Point T has not been scaled, and some areas are incorrectly assigned to point R. In each panel, the straight line between points R and T separates the regions closer to each of the points.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

A two-dimensional example of the geometry for determining similarity. Each transformed copy of the reference cell is normalized to a constant length in the chosen space (here S 6). Each transformed and normalized cell then defines a zone in which every point in that zone is closer to the transformed and normalized cell defining that zone than it is to the transformed and normalized cell defining any other zone. In this example, each point within the textured zone (which extends to infinity) is closer to the gray-centered point than it is to any of the black points.

5. Angular measure of fit

Because the measure of similarity is independent of scale, projecting points onto a spherical surface does not modify the similarity. The angle between a probe point and the reference point is a meaningful measure of how similar the two points are.

6. Generating the approximation

The following operations are performed for each of the probe lattices in the original list. For a given probe lattice, the closest approximation among all of the transformed reference points is found. If there are multiple representations of the reference point that are equally close, then all should be examined. For the case of multiples, a method must be used to find the preferred one. For our purposes, we have found it convenient to choose the one for which the unreduced G 6 distances to the transformed reference are the smallest. Other choices might be useful for other purposes.

Once the preferred result has been found, the corresponding inverted transformation is used to place the vector in the region of the original reduced reference cell. Finally, the inverse of the reduction operation that was performed on the reference cell is used to create the best match to the original reference. If it is desirable to restore lattice centering, then that operation must also be performed; the search returns a primitive representation of the unit cell.

7. Examples

7.1. A rhombohedral example

Le Trong & Stenkamp (2007) cite several structures for phospholipase A2 (krait neurotoxin) that were reported as different structures but were actually all the same structure (Bernstein et al., 2020). Expanding their search using the program SAUC (McGill et al., 2014), we find a total of six structures, four of which are identical in two pairs. Table 1 lists the unit cells as reported in the Protein Data Bank (PDB; Bernstein et al., 1977; Berman et al., 2000). In Tables 2, 3 and 4, the first entry in each table is used as the reference, and the following five entries are matched as closely as possible to the presentation of the reference cell. In Table 2, a rhombohedral presentation with PDB ID 1dpy was chosen as the reference. In Table 3, a C-centered cell with PDB ID 1g2x was chosen as the reference. In Table 4, the hexagonal cell 1u4j was chosen as the reference. In each case, the probe cells were returned in the same presentation, including lattice centering as the reference cell. So the resulting centerings were hR, mC and hP, respectively, for each matched cell, regardless of the input centering, which had been determined by crystallographic analysis.

Table 1. Unit cells of phospholipase A2 from the PDB.

PDB ID Center a (Å) b (Å) c (Å) α (°) β (°) γ (°)
1dpy R 57.98 57.98 57.98 92.02 92.02 92.02
1fe5 R 57.98 57.98 57.98 92.02 92.02 92.02
1g0z H 80.36 80.36 99.44 90 90 120
1g2x C 80.95 80.57 57.1 90 90.35 90
1u4j H 80.36 80.36 99.44 90 90 120
2osn R 57.10 57.10 57.10 89.75 89.75 89.75

Table 2. The data of Table 1 matching a rhombohedral reference; the reference cell is highlighted in bold.

PDB ID a (Å) b (Å) c (Å) α (°) β (°) γ (°) Fit (°)
1dpy 57.98 57.98 57.98 92.02 92.02 92.02 0
1fe5 57.980 57.980 57.980 92.020 92.020 92.020 0
1g0z 57.020 57.020 57.020 90.395 90.395 89.605 2.11
1g2x 57.106 57.106 57.100 89.752 90.248 90.270 2.11
1u4j 57.020 57.020 57.020 90.395 90.395 89.605 2.11
2osn 57.100 57.100 57.100 90.250 90.250 89.750 2.11

Table 3. The data of Table 1 matching a monoclinic reference; the reference cell is highlighted in bold.

PDB ID a (Å) b (Å) c (Å) α (°) β (°) γ (°) Fit (°)
1g2x 80.95 80.570 57.10 90 90.35 90 0
1dpy 83.42999 80.53835 57.98115 87.0908 89.9992 90.00114 3.14
1fe5 83.42999 80.53835 57.98115 87.0908 89.9992 90.00114 3.14
1g0z 80.91861 80.35937 57.02143 89.9996 90.5644 90.00144 0.09
1u4j 80.91861 80.35937 57.02143 89.9996 90.5603 90.00144 0.09
2osn 80.92799 80.57842 57.10254 90.0002 90.3502 89.99745 0.01

Table 4. The data of Table 1 matching a hexagonal reference; the reference cell is highlighted in bold.

PDB ID a (Å) b (Å) c (Å) α (°) β (°) γ (°) Fit (°)
1u4j 80.36 80.36 99.44 90 90 120 0
1dpy 83.4287 80.5380 101.5974 91.6597 90 121.195 4.30
1fe5 83.4287 80.5380 101.5974 91.6597 90 121.195 4.30
1g0z 80.3600 80.3600 99.4400 90 90 120 0
1g2x 80.5809 80.5809 99.3468 90.0138 89.986 120.009 0.09
2osn 80.5752 80.5752 99.3307 90 90 120 0.08

7.2. Adenosine receptor A2A

Unit cells were determined automatically from frames from serial-crystallography data collection for adenosine receptor A2A, PDB ID 5nlx (Weinert et al., 2017).

Three example unit cells were chosen from several hundred indexed data frames. Two are C-centered and one is primitive. Table 5 gives the reported data, and Tables 6, 7 and 8 are the approximate similarity matches.

Table 5. Adenosine receptor A2A, PDB ID 5nlx, unit cells as reported.

Serial No. Center a (Å) b (Å) c (Å) α (°) β (°) γ (°)
1 C 39.741 183.767 140.649 90 90 90
2 P 40.160 142.899 92.417 90 102.480 90
3 C 180.613 40.156 142.737 90 90.017 90

Table 6. Adenosine receptor A2A, approximating a C-centered cell.

The reference cell is highlighted in bold. Centering in parentheses indicates the lattice centering before matching.

Serial No. Center a (Å) b (Å) c (Å) α (°) β (°) γ (°) Fit (°)
1 C 39.741 183.767 140.649 90 90 90 0
2 (P) 40.160 180.467 142.899 90 90 89.931 1.37981
3 C 40.156 180.613 142.737 89.983 90 90 1.30423

Table 7. Adenosine receptor A2A, approximating a primitive cell.

The reference cell is highlighted in bold. Centering in parentheses indicates the lattice centering before matching.

Serial No. Center a (Å) b (Å) c (Å) α (°) β (°) γ (°) Fit (°)
2 P 40.160 142.899 92.417 90 102.480 90 0
1 (C) 39.741 140.649 94.008 90 102.21 90 1.37981
3 (C) 40.156 142.73 92.512 89.983 102.535 90 0.08374

Table 8. Adenosine receptor A2A, approximating a C-centered cell.

The reference cell is highlighted in bold. Centering in parentheses indicates the lattice centering before matching.

Serial No. Center a (Å) b (Å) c (Å) α (°) β (°) γ (°) Fit (°)
3 C 180.613 40.156 142.737 90 90.017 90 0
1 C 183.767 39.741 140.649 90 90 90 1.31
2 (P) 180.467 40.160 142.899 90 90 89.930 0.07

7.3. Points along a line in S 6

Tables 9 and 10 present two views of artificial data. A line of points in S 6 was created from the C-centered [80.95, 80.95, 57.10, 90, 90.35, 90] to the A-centered [57.10, 80.95, 80.95, 90, 90, 90.35] representation of the same cell of phospholipase A2. The series of intervening points interpolated in S 6 are shown in Table 9 (each as the reduced unit cell except for the endpoints) and the lattice-matched results are shown in Table 10.

Table 9. A line of unit cells generated by interpolating between the first and last points in S 6 .

Center a (Å) b (Å) c (Å) α (°) β (°) γ (°)
C 80.95 80.95 57.1 90 90.35 90
P 57.24 57.24 80.68 129.50 94.21 90
P 57.24 57.24 80.68 124.46 98.26 90
P 57.24 57.24 80.68 119.70 102.36 90
P 57.24 57.24 80.68 115.16 106.52 90
P 57.24 57.24 80.68 110.78 110.78 90
P 57.24 57.24 80.68 106.53 115.16 90
P 57.24 57.24 80.68 102.36 119.70 90
P 57.24 57.24 80.68 98.26 124.46 90
P 57.24 57.2 80.68 94.209 129.50 90
A 57.10 80.95 80.95 90 90 90.35

Table 10. A list of the same cells in the same order as Table 9 after transformation to match approximately with the reference cell, which is highlighted in bold.

a (Å) b (Å) c (Å) α (°) β (°) γ (°) Fit (°)
80.950 80.950 57.100 90 90.350 90 0
80.680 88.685 57.240 86.171 94.210 95.086 5.687
80.680 95.7216 57.240 83.0450 98.260 99.564 12.17
80.680 102.287 57.240 80.280 102.360 103.547 19.35
80.680 108.450 57.240 77.787 106.520 107.167 27.08
80.677 114.284 57.240 75.499 110.775 110.520 35.10
80.680 108.450 57.240 77.780 106.530 107.167 27.09
80.680 102.287 57.240 80.280 102.360 103.547 19.35
80.680 95.722 57.240 83.045 98.260 99.564 12.17
80.680 88.685 57.200 86.172 94.209 95.086 5.70
80.950 80.950 57.100 90 90.350 90 0

In Table 10, the first line is the reference cell, which is also the C-centered cell in the first row of Table 9. The final cell is the same cell but in the A-centered presentation. The points between are equally spaced in S 6 between those two centered points. Table 9 presents the list of points as generated and Table 10 lists the same cells in the lattice-matching presentation. Because the initial cell was C-centered, the following cells are also in that presentation, although the intermediate cells are not C-centered.

7.4. Examples from the PDB

The program SAUC (McGill et al., 2014) was used to query the PDB. The search started from the C-centered unit cell of PDB entry 1rgx (resistin) requesting the nearest 50 cells; 26 unique cells resulted. Because there was no limit on how far the points could be from the probe, some cells differ significantly from the search cell. The results are listed in Table 11 in their published representation. Table 12 lists the same cells in the same order as in Table 11, but with the same lattice centering as 1rgx, which is the first, reference, entry.

Table 11. Unit cells from the PDB.

Cells listed are nearest the C-centered cell of 1rgx and keeping only one representative of each protein type. The search was performed using the program SAUC.

PDB ID Center a (Å) b (Å) c (Å) α (°) β (°) γ (°)
1rgx C 49.021 52.475 96.609 90 96.53 90
1r8m P 33.429 95.775 33.665 90 101.67 90
2fxo P 40.157 41.867 97.795 91.11 92.73 107.18
4rne C 37.656 54.197 95.677 90 90 90
3mgd C 57.933 56.341 99.721 90 98.86 90
5yo3 C 40.328 50.126 94.237 90 90 90
4gzn C 40.218 60.641 96.119 90 90 90
3vvw C 195.72 37.420 40.280 90 94.66 90
4bhv P 33.078 33.621 99.138 90 96.75 90
3ihu C 54.646 79.135 103.244 90 102.08 90
5wou C 36.429 53.884 94.219 90 90 90
3nhm C 56.616 40.408 99.617 90 102.28 90
5k2l P 29.130 29.130 94.257 90 90 90
3t47 P 26.152 94.356 29.196 90 97.19 90
4ruv P 31.376 31.376 94.804 90 90 90
5ed9 C 86.371 34.743 99.839 90 101.49 90
1sip C 32.180 62.520 95.760 90 90 90
2sam C 62.700 32.200 96.100 90 90 90
1ytj C 62.300 32.100 96.300 90 90 90
4hhx C 34.790 73.610 95.900 90 90 90
3w92 P 31.760 33.552 94.998 90 90 90
167d P 33.200 33.200 96.040 90 90 120
4qeg P 31.237 31.237 93.848 90 90 90
2ygg C 200.700 38.350 34.100 90 91.35 90
1oz7 P 37.966 95.258 42.611 90 112.58 90
6nfs P 30.584 34.753 94.679 90 90 90

Table 12. Data in Table 11 best matched to PDB entry 1rgx; the reference cell is highlighted in bold.

PDB ID a (Å) b (Å) c (Å) α (°) β (°) γ (°) Fit (°)
1rgx 49.021 52.475 96.609 90 96.53 90 0
1r8m 42.374 52.020 95.775 90 90 90.41 2.67
2fxo 48.706 66.020 97.795 89.04 93.21 87.50 3.07
4rne 37.656 54.197 95.677 90 90 90 3.80
3mgd 57.933 56.341 99.721 90 98.86 90 2.91
5yo3 40.328 50.126 94.237 90 90 90 2.84
4gzn 40.218 60.641 96.119 90 90 90 3.86
3vvw 54.979 54.979 99.633 86.02 100.74 85.78 3.90
4bhv 47.165 47.165 99.138 85.27 94.73 89.07 2.71
3ihu 54.646 79.135 103.244 90 102.08 90 5.07
5wou 36.429 53.884 94.219 90 90 90 4.01
3nhm 56.616 40.408 99.617 90 102.28 90 4.39
5k2l 41.196 41.196 94.257 90 90 90 2.65
3t47 41.563 36.677 94.356 90 90 83.65 2.91
4ruv 44.372 44.372 94.804 90 90 90 2.54
5ed9 46.548 67.682 99.839 82.70 100.65 107.73 5.82
1sip 35.158 57.508 95.760 90 90 84.31 4.83
2sam 35.242 57.582 96.10 90 90 84.20 4.83
1ytj 35.042 57.348 96.30 90 90 84.36 4.86
4hhx 40.709 63.858 95.90 90 90 80.10 4.63
3w92 46.200 46.200 94.998 90 90 86.86 2.75
167d 33.20 57.504 96.040 90 90 90 5.26
4qeg 44.176 44.176 93.848 90 90 90 2.54
2ygg 51.318 51.318 102.166 82.83 98.954 96.71 3.40
1oz7 44.886 67.078 95.258 90 90 82.86 4.45
6nfs 46.294 46.294 94.679 90 90 82.70 2.99

8. Summary

A method is proposed for transforming unit cells for a group of crystals so that they all appear as similar as possible to a selected cell. The search for cells similar to the reference cell is done using the reduced cell and comparing with other possible unit cells nearby in the space S 6. At the end, the lattice centering of the reference cell is restored.

9. Availability of code

The C++ code for lattice matching in S 6 is available on github.com at https://github.com/duck10/LatticeRepLib.git.

Acknowledgments

Careful copy-editing and corrections by Frances C. Bernstein are gratefully acknowledged. Our thanks to Jean Jakoncic and Alexei Soares for helpful conversations and access to data and facilities at Brookhaven National Laboratory. We thank Ronald Stenkamp for pointing us to the paper by Le Trong & Stenkamp (2007). We gratefully acknowledge Jörg Standfuss for permission to use the adenosine receptor A2A data. Richard Gildea helped in securing data for examples.

Funding Statement

Funding for this research was provided in part by: US Department of Energy, Office of Biological and Environmental Research and Office of Basic Energy Sciences (grant Nos. KP1607011 and DE-SC0012704, and in earlier years grant No. DE-AC02-98CH10886); US National Institutes of Health (grant No. P30GM133893, and in earlier years grant Nos. P41RR012408, P41GM103473, P41GM111244, R01GM117126 and 1R21GM129570); and in earlier years Dectris Ltd.

References

  1. Andrews, L. C. & Bernstein, H. J. (2016). J. Appl. Cryst. 49, 756–761. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  2. Andrews, L. C., Bernstein, H. J. & Sauter, N. K. (2019a). Acta Cryst. A75, 115–120. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  3. Andrews, L. C., Bernstein, H. J. & Sauter, N. K. (2019b). Acta Cryst. A75, 593–599. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  4. Berman, H. M., Westbrook, J., Feng, Z., Gilliland, G., Bhat, T. N., Weissig, H., Shindyalov, I. N. & Bourne, P. E. (2000). Nucleic Acids Res. 28, 235–242. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  5. Bernstein, F. C., Koetzle, T. F., Williams, G. J. B., Meyer, E. F. Jr, Brice, M. D., Rodgers, J. R., Kennard, O., Shimanouchi, T. & Tasumi, M. (1977). J. Mol. Biol. 112, 535–542. [DOI] [PubMed]
  6. Bernstein, H. J., Andrews, L. C., Diaz, J. A. Jr, Jakoncic, J., Nguyen, T., Sauter, N. K., Soares, A. S., Wei, J. Y., Wlodek, M. R. & Xerri, M. A. (2020). Struct. Dyn. 7, 014302. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  7. Delaunay, B. N. (1932). Z. Kristallogr. 84, 109–149.
  8. Donnay, J. D. H., Donnay, G., Cox, E. X., Kennard, O. & King, M. V. (1963). Editors. Crystal Data: Determinative Tables, 2nd ed. Buffalo: American Crystallographic Association.
  9. Heath, T. L. (1956). Translator. The Thirteen Books of Euclid’s Elements, 2nd ed., unabridged. North Chelmsford, Massachusetts, USA: Courier Corporation.
  10. Keable, S. M., Kölsch, A., Simon, P. S., Dasgupta, M., Chatterjee, R., Subramanian, S. K., Hussein, R., Ibrahim, M., Kim, I.-S., Bogacz, I., Makita, H., Pham, C. C., Fuller, F. D., Gul, S., Paley, D., Lassalle, L., Sutherlin, K. D., Bhowmick, A., Moriarty, N. W., Young, I. D., Blaschke, J. P., de Lichtenberg, C., Chernev, P., Cheah, M. H., Park, S., Park, G., Kim, J., Lee, S. J., Park, J., Tono, K., Owada, S., Hunter, M. S., Batyuk, A., Oggenfuss, R., Sander, M., Zerdane, S., Ozerov, D., Nass, K., Lemke, H., Mankowsky, R., Brewster, A. S., Messinger, J., Sauter, N. K., Yachandra, V. K., Yano, J., Zouni, A. & Kern, J. (2021). Sci. Rep. 11, 21787.
  11. Le Trong, I. & Stenkamp, R. E. (2007). Acta Cryst. D63, 548–549. [DOI] [PubMed]
  12. McGill, K. J., Asadi, M., Karakasheva, M. T., Andrews, L. C. & Bernstein, H. J. (2014). J. Appl. Cryst. 47, 360–364. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  13. Selling, E. (1874). J. Reine Angew. Math. 1874(77), 143–229.
  14. Weinert, T., Olieric, N., Cheng, R., Brünle, S., James, D., Ozerov, D., Gashi, D., Vera, L., Marsh, M., Jaeger, K., Dworkowski, F., Panepucci, E., Basu, S., Skopintsev, P., Doré, A. S., Geng, T., Cooke, R. M., Liang, M., Prota, A. E., Panneels, V., Nogly, P., Ermler, U., Schertler, G., Hennig, M., Steinmetz, M. O., Wang, M. & Standfuss, J. (2017). Nat. Commun. 8, 542. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]

Articles from Acta Crystallographica. Section A, Foundations and Advances are provided here courtesy of International Union of Crystallography

RESOURCES