Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31724275›Full record

ArticleProtein science : a publication of the Protein Society2020

New tools in MolProbity validation: CaBLAM for CryoEM backbone, UnDowser to rethink "waters," and NGL Viewer to recapture online 3D graphics.

Michael G Prisant, Christopher J Williams, Vincent B Chen, Jane S Richardson, David C Richardson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 105 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
105citing 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

105 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Distinct ubiquinone binding at the oxidation and reduction sites of cytochrome bcProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Ten rules for a structural bioinformatic analysis.PLoS computational biology · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

45 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors.

Michael G PrisantDepartment of Biochemistry, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.ORCID 0000-0003-4095-387X
Christopher J WilliamsDepartment of Biochemistry, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.ORCID 0000-0002-5808-8768
Vincent B ChenDepartment of Biochemistry, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.ORCID 0000-0003-2492-979X
Jane S RichardsonDepartment of Biochemistry, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.ORCID 0000-0002-3311-2944
David C RichardsonDepartment of Biochemistry, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.ORCID 0000-0001-5069-343X

Funding

MolProbity Validation & Corrections: for Crystallography, PDB & BiomedicineR01GM073919 · NIGMS · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI RICHARDSON, DAVID CLAUDE · 2006 to 2018
$3.7M
Extending MolProbity Diagnosis & Healing Methods to Empower Better CryoEM & Xray Models at 2.5-4A Resolution, plus Versioned, Redeposited "GEMS" for Important Individual StructuresR35GM131883 · NIGMS · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI RICHARDSON, DAVID CLAUDE · 2019 to 2022
$1.7M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM073919NIGMS NIH HHS R35 GM131883NIGMS NIH HHS R35-GM131883NIH HHS R01-GM073919
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The MolProbity web service provides macromolecular model validation to help correct local errors, for the structural biology community worldwide. Here we highlight new validation features, and also describe how we are fighting back against outside developments which compromise that mission. Our new tool called UnDowser analyzes the properties and context of clashing HOH "waters" to diagnose what they might actually represent; a dozen distinct scenarios are illustrated and described. We now treat alternate conformations more thoroughly, and switching to the Neo4j database (graphical rather than relational) enables cleaner, more comprehensive, and much larger reference datasets. A problematic outside change is that refinement software now increasingly restrains traditional validation criteria (geometry, clashes, rotamers, and even Ramachandran) in order to supplement the sparser experimental data at 3-4 Å resolutions typical of modern cryoEM. But unfortunately the broad density allows model optimization without fixing underlying problems, which means these structures often score much better on validation than they really are. CaBLAM, our tool designed for evaluating peptide orientations at lower resolutions, was described in the previous Tools issue, and here we demonstrate its effectiveness in diagnosing local errors even when other validation outliers have been artificially removed. Sophisticated hacking of the MolProbity server has required continual monitoring and various security measures short of restricting user access. The deprecation of Java applets now prevents KiNG interactive online display of outliers on the 3D model during a MolProbity run, but that important functionality has now been recaptured with a modified version of the Javascript NGL Viewer.

Indexed as

Computational BiologyCryoelectron MicroscopyCrystallography, X-RayImaging, Three-DimensionalMacromolecular SubstancesModels, MolecularMolecular ConformationSoftwareWeb BrowserMacromolecular Substancesbackbone conformationchiral volumesion bindingNeo4joverfittingRamachandran restraintsserver securitystructure validationwater analysis

Identifiers

PMID31724275
PMCPMC6933861

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.