ArticleProteins2017
Perspectives and expectations in structural bioinformatics of metalloproteins.
Article in Proteins, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A chemical interpretation of protein electron density maps in the worldwide protein data bank.PloS one · 2020Article
- Finding High-Quality Metal Ion-Centric Regions Across the Worldwide Protein Data Bank.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
- Detect, correct, retract: How to manage incorrect structural models.The FEBS journal · 2018Review
- 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Recent papers highlight the presence of large numbers of compressed angles in metal ion coordination geometries for metalloprotein entries in the worldwide Protein Data Bank, due mainly to multidentate coordination. The prevalence of these compressed angles has raised the controversial idea that significantly populated aberrant or even novel coordination geometries may exist. Some of these papers have undergone severe criticism, apparently due to views held that only canonical coordination geometries exist in significant numbers. While criticism of controversial ideas is warranted and to be expected, we believe that a line was crossed where unfair criticism was put forth to discredit an inconvenient result that compressed angles exist in large numbers, which does not support the dogmatic canonical coordination geometry view. We present a review of the major controversial results and their criticisms, pointing out both good suggestions that have been incorporated in new analyses, but also unfair criticism that was put forth to support a particular view. We also suggest that better science is enabled through: (i) a more collegial and collaborative approach in future critical reviews and (ii) the requirement for a description of methods and data including source code and visualizations that enables full reproducibility of results. Proteins 2017; 85:938-944. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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.