Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28291756›Full record

ArticleActa crystallographica. Section D, Structural biology2017

Twilight reloaded: the peptide experience.

Christian X Weichenberger, Edwin Pozharski, Bernhard Rupp

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Acta crystallographica. Section D, Structural biology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Avoiding pitfalls when modelling ligands in macromolecular crystallography.Acta crystallographica. Section D, Structural biology · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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.

Christian X Weichenbergerk.k. Hofkristallamt, 991 Audrey Place, Vista, CA 92084, USA.
Edwin PozharskiDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Bernhard Ruppk.k. Hofkristallamt, 991 Audrey Place, Vista, CA 92084, USA.

Funding

Austrian Science Fund FWF P 28395
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The de facto commoditization of biomolecular crystallography as a result of almost disruptive instrumentation automation and continuing improvement of software allows any sensibly trained structural biologist to conduct crystallographic studies of biomolecules with reasonably valid outcomes: that is, models based on properly interpreted electron density. Robust validation has led to major mistakes in the protein part of structure models becoming rare, but some depositions of protein-peptide complex structure models, which generally carry significant interest to the scientific community, still contain erroneous models of the bound peptide ligand. Here, the protein small-molecule ligand validation tool Twilight is updated to include peptide ligands. (i) The primary technical reasons and potential human factors leading to problems in ligand structure models are presented; (ii) a new method used to score peptide-ligand models is presented; (iii) a few instructive and specific examples, including an electron-density-based analysis of peptide-ligand structures that do not contain any ligands, are discussed in detail; (iv) means to avoid such mistakes and the implications for database integrity are discussed and (v) some suggestions as to how journal editors could help to expunge errors from the Protein Data Bank are provided.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsAnimalsCrystallography, X-RayDatabases, ProteinData MiningElectronsHumansLigandsMitogen-Activated Protein Kinase 1Molecular ConformationPeptidesPhospholipases A2Protein BindingProtein ConformationProteinsRatsLigandsMitogen-Activated Protein Kinase 1PeptidesPhospholipases A2ProteinsSerine ProteasesSmall Molecule Librariesevidence-based reasoningOMIT difference densityprotein–peptide ligand structuresvalidation

Identifiers

PMID28291756
PMCPMC5349433

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.