Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33460600›Full record

ArticleBiophysical journal2021

Improving SARS-CoV-2 structures: Peer review by early coordinate release.

Tristan I Croll, Christopher J Williams, Vincent B Chen, David C Richardson, Jane S Richardson

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biophysical journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Sequence-assignment validation in protein crystal structure models with checkMySequence.Acta crystallographica. Section D, Structural biology · 2023
    Article
  5. Errors in structural biology are not the exception.Acta crystallographica. Section D, Structural biology · 2023
    Article
  6. Using deep-learning predictions of inter-residue distances for model validation.Acta crystallographica. Section D, Structural biology · 2022
    Article
  7. Sequence-assignment validation in cryo-EM models with checkMySequence.Acta crystallographica. Section D, Structural biology · 2022
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Seeing the PDB.The Journal of biological chemistry
    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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Tristan I CrollCIMR, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Christopher J WilliamsDepartment of Biochemistry, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina.
Vincent B ChenDepartment of Biochemistry, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina.
David C RichardsonDepartment of Biochemistry, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina.
Jane S RichardsonDepartment of Biochemistry, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. Electronic address: jane.richardson@duke.edu.
Duke University · USUniversity of Cambridge · GB

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
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 P01 GM063210NIGMS NIH HHS R35 GM131883Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This work builds upon the record-breaking speed and generous immediate release of new experimental three-dimensional structures of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) proteins and complexes, which are crucial to downstream vaccine and drug development. We have surveyed those structures to catch the occasional errors that could be significant for those important uses and for which we were able to provide demonstrably higher-accuracy corrections. This process relied on new validation and correction methods such as CaBLAM and ISOLDE, which are not yet in routine use. We found such important and correctable problems in seven early SARS-CoV-2 structures. Two of the structures were soon superseded by new higher-resolution data, confirming our proposed changes. For the other five, we emailed the depositors a documented and illustrated report and encouraged them to make the model corrections themselves and use the new option at the worldwide Protein Data Bank for depositors to re-version their coordinates without changing the Protein Data Bank code. This quickly and easily makes the better-accuracy coordinates available to anyone who examines or downloads their structure, even before formal publication. The changes have involved sequence misalignments, incorrect RNA conformations near a bound inhibitor, incorrect metal ligands, and cis-trans or peptide flips that prevent good contact at interaction sites. These improvements have propagated into nearly all related structures done afterward. This process constitutes a new form of highly rigorous peer review, which is actually faster and more strict than standard publication review because it has access to coordinates and maps; journal peer review would also be strengthened by such access.

Indexed as

Peer ReviewAdenosine MonophosphateAlanineAntibodies, ViralCatalytic DomainDNA-Directed RNA PolymerasesHumansModels, MolecularNucleocapsidPhosphoproteinsRNA-Binding ProteinsSARS-CoV-2Spike Glycoprotein, CoronavirusZincAdenosine MonophosphateAlanineAntibodies, ViralDNA-Directed RNA PolymerasesPhosphoproteinsremdesivirRNA-Binding ProteinsSpike Glycoprotein, Coronavirusspike protein, SARS-CoV-2Zinc

Identifiers

PMID33460600
PMCPMC7834719
OpenAlexW3123161910

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.