ArticleIUCrJ2024
Using deep-learning predictions reveals a large number of register errors in PDB depositions.
Article in IUCrJ, 2024. 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.
- AI-Predicted Model-Guided Rebuilding of the Experimental Structure of Mouse δ-Aminolevulinic Acid Dehydratase.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- CASP16 Protein Monomer Structure Prediction Assessment.Proteins · 2026Article
- gapTrick-structural characterization of protein-protein interactions using AlphaFold.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2025Article
- The future of pharmaceuticals: Artificial intelligence in drug discovery and development.Journal of pharmaceutical analysis · 2025Review
- Emerging frontiers in protein structure prediction following the AlphaFold revolution.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2025Review
- multistrap: boosting phylogenetic analyses with structural information.Nature communications · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The accuracy of the information in the Protein Data Bank (PDB) is of great importance for the myriad downstream applications that make use of protein structural information. Despite best efforts, the occasional introduction of errors is inevitable, especially where the experimental data are of limited resolution. A novel protein structure validation approach based on spotting inconsistencies between the residue contacts and distances observed in a structural model and those computationally predicted by methods such as AlphaFold2 has previously been established. It is particularly well suited to the detection of register errors. Importantly, this new approach is orthogonal to traditional methods based on stereochemistry or map-model agreement, and is resolution independent. Here, thousands of likely register errors are identified by scanning 3-5 Å resolution structures in the PDB. Unlike most methods, the application of this approach yields suggested corrections to the register of affected regions, which it is shown, even by limited implementation, lead to improved refinement statistics in the vast majority of cases. A few limitations and confounding factors such as fold-switching proteins are characterized, but this approach is expected to have broad application in spotting potential issues in current accessions and, through its implementation and distribution in CCP4, helping to ensure the accuracy of future depositions.
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.