Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27599738›Full record

ArticleActa crystallographica. Section D, Structural biology2016

Improved ligand geometries in crystallographic refinement using AFITT in PHENIX.

Pawel A Janowski, Nigel W Moriarty, Brian P Kelley, David A Case, Darrin M York, Paul D Adams, Gregory L Warren

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Acta crystallographica. Section D, Structural biology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. The Untangle Challenge for accurate ensemble models.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. In situ ligand restraints from quantum-mechanical methods.Acta crystallographica. Section D, Structural biology · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Modelling covalent linkages in CCP4.Acta crystallographica. Section D, Structural biology · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Validation of ligands in macromolecular structures determined by X-ray crystallography.Acta crystallographica. Section D, Structural biology · 2018
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
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

7 authors.

Pawel A JanowskiBioMaPs Institute, Center for Integrative Proteomics Research, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ 08854, USA.
Nigel W MoriartyMolecular Biophysics and Integrated Bioimaging, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA.
Brian P KelleyNovartis Institutes for BioMedical Research Inc., Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.
David A CaseBioMaPs Institute, Center for Integrative Proteomics Research, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ 08854, USA.
Darrin M YorkBioMaPs Institute, Center for Integrative Proteomics Research, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ 08854, USA.
Paul D AdamsMolecular Biophysics and Integrated Bioimaging, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA.
Gregory L WarrenOpenEye Scientific Software, Santa Fe, NM 87508, USA.

Funding

PROJECT 5 - DUKE - STRUCTURE VALIDATION AND IMPROVEMENT FOR PROTEINS AND N. ACIDSP01GM063210 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIF-LAWRENC BERKELEY LAB · PI ADAMS, PAUL DAVID · 2001 to 2021
$33.5M
NIGMS NIH HHS P01 GM063210
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Modern crystal structure refinement programs rely on geometry restraints to overcome the challenge of a low data-to-parameter ratio. While the classical Engh and Huber restraints work well for standard amino-acid residues, the chemical complexity of small-molecule ligands presents a particular challenge. Most current approaches either limit ligand restraints to those that can be readily described in the Crystallographic Information File (CIF) format, thus sacrificing chemical flexibility and energetic accuracy, or they employ protocols that substantially lengthen the refinement time, potentially hindering rapid automated refinement workflows. PHENIX-AFITT refinement uses a full molecular-mechanics force field for user-selected small-molecule ligands during refinement, eliminating the potentially difficult problem of finding or generating high-quality geometry restraints. It is fully integrated with a standard refinement protocol and requires practically no additional steps from the user, making it ideal for high-throughput workflows. PHENIX-AFITT refinements also handle multiple ligands in a single model, alternate conformations and covalently bound ligands. Here, the results of combining AFITT and the PHENIX software suite on a data set of 189 protein-ligand PDB structures are presented. Refinements using PHENIX-AFITT significantly reduce ligand conformational energy and lead to improved geometries without detriment to the fit to the experimental data. For the data presented, PHENIX-AFITT refinements result in more chemically accurate models for small-molecule ligands.

Indexed as

Crystallography, X-RaySoftwareDatabases, ProteinLigandsModels, MolecularMolecular ConformationProtein ConformationProteinsSmall Molecule LibrariesLigandsProteinsSmall Molecule LibrariesAFITTgeometry restraintsligandsmacromolecular refinementPHENIX

Identifiers

PMID27599738
PMCPMC5013598

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.