ArticleActa crystallographica. Section D, Structural biology2022
Atomic model validation using the CCP-EM software suite.
Article in Acta crystallographica. Section D, Structural biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Structural basis of human γTuRC closure during CM1-activated microtubule nucleation.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Transcription activation mechanism of a noncanonical DNA damage response pathway by the WYL-activator, DriD.Science advances · 2026Article
- AI-based quality assessment methods for protein structure models from cryo-EM.Current research in structural biology · 2025Review
- Connecting the dots: deep learning-based automated model building methods in cryo-EM.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2025Review
- Protein model refinement for cryo-EM maps using AlphaFold2 and the DAQ score.Acta crystallographica. Section D, Structural biology · 2023Article
- Using deep-learning predictions of inter-residue distances for model validation.Acta crystallographica. Section D, Structural biology · 2022Article
- Overview and applications of map and model validation tools in the CCP-EM software suite.Faraday discussions · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Recently, there has been a dramatic improvement in the quality and quantity of data derived using cryogenic electron microscopy (cryo-EM). This is also associated with a large increase in the number of atomic models built. Although the best resolutions that are achievable are improving, often the local resolution is variable, and a significant majority of data are still resolved at resolutions worse than 3 Å. Model building and refinement is often challenging at these resolutions, and hence atomic model validation becomes even more crucial to identify less reliable regions of the model. Here, a graphical user interface for atomic model validation, implemented in the CCP-EM software suite, is presented. It is aimed to develop this into a platform where users can access multiple complementary validation metrics that work across a range of resolutions and obtain a summary of evaluations. Based on the validation estimates from atomic models associated with cryo-EM structures from SARS-CoV-2, it was observed that models typically favor adopting the most common conformations over fitting the observations when compared with the model agreement with data. At low resolutions, the stereochemical quality may be favored over data fit, but care should be taken to ensure that the model agrees with the data in terms of resolvable features. It is demonstrated that further re-refinement can lead to improvement of the agreement with data without the loss of geometric quality. This also highlights the need for improved resolution-dependent weight optimization in model refinement and an effective test for overfitting that would help to guide the refinement process.
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.