Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16462939›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2006

Traditional biomolecular structure determination by NMR spectroscopy allows for major errors.

Sander B Nabuurs, Chris A E M Spronk, Geerten W Vuister, Gert Vriend

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

34 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Physics-based method to validate and repair flaws in protein structures.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2013
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. CheShift-2: graphic validation of protein structures.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2012
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Sander B NabuursCenter for Molecular and Biomolecular Informatics, Nijmegen Center for Molecular Life Sciences, Radboud University, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Chris A E M Spronk
Geerten W Vuister
Gert Vriend

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

One of the major goals of structural genomics projects is to determine the three-dimensional structure of representative members of as many different fold families as possible. Comparative modeling is expected to fill the remaining gaps by providing structural models of homologs of the experimentally determined proteins. However, for such an approach to be successful it is essential that the quality of the experimentally determined structures is adequate. In an attempt to build a homology model for the protein dynein light chain 2A (DLC2A) we found two potential templates, both experimentally determined nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) structures originating from structural genomics efforts. Despite their high sequence identity (96%), the folds of the two structures are markedly different. This urged us to perform in-depth analyses of both structure ensembles and the deposited experimental data, the results of which clearly identify one of the two models as largely incorrect. Next, we analyzed the quality of a large set of recent NMR-derived structure ensembles originating from both structural genomics projects and individual structure determination groups. Unfortunately, a visual inspection of structures exhibiting lower quality scores than DLC2A reveals that the seriously flawed DLC2A structure is not an isolated incident. Overall, our results illustrate that the quality of NMR structures cannot be reliably evaluated using only traditional experimental input data and overall quality indicators as a reference and clearly demonstrate the urgent need for a tight integration of more sophisticated structure validation tools in NMR structure determination projects. In contrast to common methodologies where structures are typically evaluated as a whole, such tools should preferentially operate on a per-residue basis.

Indexed as

Data Interpretation, StatisticalAmino Acid SequenceCytoplasmic DyneinsDyneinsHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance SpectroscopyMolecular ConformationMolecular Sequence DataNeoplasm ProteinsProtein ConformationSequence Homology, Amino AcidCytoplasmic DyneinsDyneinsDYNLRB1 protein, humanNeoplasm Proteins

Identifiers

PMID16462939
PMCPMC1359070

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.