ArticleIUCrJ2025
Using multiple computer-predicted structures as molecular replacement models: application to the antiviral mini-protein LCB2.
Article in IUCrJ, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
In this report, we describe a set of structures of the engineered protein LCB2 that has been solved starting from different computer-predicted molecular replacement (MR) models. We found that AlphaFold3, AlphaFold2, MultiFOLD, Rosetta, RoseTTAFold and trRosetta all produced successful MR models for this three-helix bundle 58-residue protein, while some of the older predictors failed. To assign B factors in the MR models we used the predictor-generated confidence scores or, as a convenient alternative, the accessible surface area (ASA) values. The process of multi-start structure determination using Coot and Phenix demonstrated good convergence, leading to six structures within 0.25 Å (all-atom RMSD) of each other. Of note, structural differences between the computer-predicted MR models and the final structures can be largely attributed to a single specific crystal contact. Comparing the six structural solutions, we observe that a number of surface side chains have been solved with different conformations. Interestingly, for each individual structure the electron density is consistent with a single rotameric state and offers no direct evidence of conformational heterogeneity. Strictly speaking, this behavior constitutes a case of model bias; we argue, however, that it represents a benign side of model bias. Specifically, when we use a model where the side-chain conformation corresponds to one of the actual (significantly populated) rotameric states, this leads to an enhancement of the electron density for this particular conformation. Conversely, when we use a model with an irrelevant (low-population) side-chain conformation, it fails to produce the matching electron density. We thus conclude that the six LCB2 structures obtained in this study can be grouped into a multiconformer ensemble, where structural variations are representative of protein's conformational dynamics. Indeed, using this six-member ensemble leads to a significant drop in R
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.