ReviewBiopolymers2013
Studying and polishing the PDB's macromolecules.
Review in Biopolymers, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Crystal structures of main protease (MMolecular biomedicine · 2023Article
- Design of structurally distinct proteins using strategies inspired by evolution.Science (New York, N.Y.) · 2016Article
- A rotamer library to enable modeling and design of peptoid foldamers.Journal of the American Chemical Society · 2014Article
- The good, the bad and the dubious: VHELIBS, a validation helper for ligands and binding sites.Journal of cheminformatics · 2013Article
- Doing molecular biophysics: finding, naming, and picturing signal within complexity.Annual review of biophysics · 2013Article
- Seeing the PDB.The Journal of biological chemistryReview
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Macromolecular crystal structures are among the best of scientific data, providing detailed insight into these complex and biologically important molecules with a relatively low level of error and subjectivity. However, there are two notable problems with getting the most information from them. The first is that the models are not perfect: there is still opportunity for improving them, and users need to evaluate whether the local reliability in a structure is up to answering their question of interest. The second is that protein and nucleic acid molecules are highly complex and individual, inherently handed and three-dimensional, and the cooperative and subtle interactions that govern their detailed structure and function are not intuitively evident. Thus there is a real need for graphical representations and descriptive classifications that enable molecular 3D literacy. We have spent our career working to understand these elegant molecules ourselves, and building tools to help us and others determine and understand them better. The Protein Data Bank (PDB) has of course been vital and central to this undertaking. Here we combine some history of our involvement as depositors, illustrators, evaluators, and end-users of PDB structures with commentary on how best to study and draw scientific inferences from them.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.