Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24064406›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in structural biology2013

Crystallographic model validation: from diagnosis to healing.

Jane S Richardson, Michael G Prisant, David C Richardson

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in structural biology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Model validation: local diagnosis, correction and when to quit.Acta crystallographica. Section D, Structural biology · 2018
    Article
  6. MolProbity: More and better reference data for improved all-atom structure validation.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2018
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

3 authors.

Jane S RichardsonDepartment of Biochemistry, Duke University, 132 Nanaline Duke Bldg, DUMC 3711, Durham, NC 27710, USA. Electronic address: jsr@kinemage.biochem.duke.edu.
Michael G Prisant
David C Richardson

Funding

MolProbity Validation & Corrections: for Crystallography, PDB & BiomedicineR01GM073919 · NIGMS · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI RICHARDSON, DAVID CLAUDE · 2006 to 2018
$3.7M
New Kind of Quality Management for X-ray &NMR ModelsR01GM073930 · NIGMS · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI RICHARDSON, DAVID CLAUDE · 2005 to 2013
$2.3M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM073919NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM073930NIGMS NIH HHS R01-GM073930
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Model validation has evolved from a passive final gatekeeping step to an ongoing diagnosis and healing process that enables significant improvement of accuracy. A recent phase of active development was spurred by the worldwide Protein Data Bank requiring data deposition and establishing Validation Task Force committees, by strong growth in high-quality reference data, by new speed and ease of computations, and by an upswing of interest in large molecular machines and structural ensembles. Progress includes automated correction methods, concise and user-friendly validation reports for referees and on the PDB websites, extension of error correction to RNA and error diagnosis to ligands, carbohydrates, and membrane proteins, and a good start on better methods for low resolution and for multiple conformations.

Indexed as

Crystallography, X-RayModels, MolecularDatabases, ProteinInternetProteinsReproducibility of ResultsProteins

Identifiers

PMID24064406
PMCPMC3805755

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.