ArticleJournal of structural biology2018
Constructing atomic structural models into cryo-EM densities using molecular dynamics - Pros and cons.
Article in Journal of structural biology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- MDFF_NM: Improved Molecular Dynamics Flexible Fitting into Cryo-EM Density Maps with a Multireplica Normal Mode-Based Search.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2024Article
- CryoFold: determining protein structures and data-guided ensembles from cryo-EM density maps.Matter · 2021Article
- Cryo-EM structures of a lipid-sensitive pentameric ligand-gated ion channel embedded in a phosphatidylcholine-only bilayer.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2020Article
- Article
- Comparing cryo-EM structures.Journal of structural biology · 2018Article
- Assessment of detailed conformations suggests strategies for improving cryoEM models: Helix at lower resolution, ensembles, pre-refinement fixups, and validation at multi-residue length scale.Journal of structural biology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate structure determination from electron density maps at 3-5 Å resolution necessitates a balance between extensive global and local sampling of atomistic models, yet with the stereochemical correctness of backbone and sidechain geometries. Molecular Dynamics Flexible Fitting (MDFF), particularly through a resolution-exchange scheme, ReMDFF, provides a robust way of achieving this balance for hybrid structure determination. Employing two high-resolution density maps, namely that of β-galactosidase at 3.2 Å and TRPV1 at 3.4 Å, we showcase the quality of ReMDFF-generated models, comparing them against ones submitted by independent research groups for the 2015-2016 Cryo-EM Model Challenge. This comparison offers a clear evaluation of ReMDFF's strengths and shortcomings, and those of data-guided real-space refinements in general. ReMDFF results scored highly on the various metric for judging the quality-of-fit and quality-of-model. However, some systematic discrepancies are also noted employing a Molprobity analysis, that are reproducible across multiple competition entries. A space of key refinement parameters is explored within ReMDFF to observe their impact within the final model. Choice of force field parameters and initial model seem to have the most significant impact on ReMDFF model-quality. To this end, very recently developed CHARMM36m force field parameters provide now more refined ReMDFF models than the ones originally submitted to the Cryo-EM challenge. Finally, a set of good-practices is prescribed for the community to benefit from the MDFF developments.
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.