ReviewThe Journal of biological chemistry
Structural genomics and the Protein Data Bank.
Review in The Journal of biological chemistry. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence and ultra-high performance computing methods and experiments for drug discovery: virtual screening, deep learning, molecular dynamics simulations, ADMET modelling, and experimental validation.Molecular biomedicine · 2026Review
- Modernizing biomolecular NMR: The POKY suite.The Journal of biological chemistry · 2026Review
- Synchrotron structural biology at SSRL, the beginning and beyond.Journal of synchrotron radiation · 2026Article
- Molecular insights of acarbose metabolization catalyzed by acarbose-preferred glucosidase.Nature communications · 2025Article
- 20 years of crystal hits: progress and promise in ultrahigh-throughput crystallization screening.Acta crystallographica. Section D, Structural biology · 2023Article
- RCSB Protein Data Bank (RCSB.org): delivery of experimentally-determined PDB structures alongside one million computed structure models of proteins from artificial intelligence/machine learning.Nucleic acids research · 2023Article
- Article
- Protein Data Bank: A Comprehensive Review of 3D Structure Holdings and Worldwide Utilization by Researchers, Educators, and Students.Biomolecules · 2022Review
- Capturing the geometry, function, and evolution of enzymes with 3D templates.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The field of Structural Genomics arose over the last 3 decades to address a large and rapidly growing divergence between microbial genomic, functional, and structural data. Several international programs took advantage of the vast genomic sequence information and evaluated the feasibility of structure determination for expanded and newly discovered protein families. As a consequence, structural genomics has developed structure-determination pipelines and applied them to a wide range of novel, uncharacterized proteins, often from "microbial dark matter," and later to proteins from human pathogens. Advances were especially needed in protein production and rapid de novo structure solution. The experimental three-dimensional models were promptly made public, facilitating structure determination of other members of the family and helping to understand their molecular and biochemical functions. Improvements in experimental methods and databases resulted in fast progress in molecular and structural biology. The Protein Data Bank structure repository played a central role in the coordination of structural genomics efforts and the structural biology community as a whole. It facilitated development of standards and validation tools essential for maintaining high quality of deposited structural data.
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.