ArticlePLoS computational biology2025
Ten rules for a structural bioinformatic analysis.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Melanoma Intelligence: Explainable AI Reveals Histopathologic Aggressiveness as the Dominant Axis of Lymph-Node Metastasis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Navigating the uncharted: AI-driven advances in protein structure, dynamics, interactions and ligand interactions for understudied families.BioData mining · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Protein Data Bank (PDB) is one of the richest open‑source repositories in biology, housing over 242,000 macromolecular structural models alongside much of the experimental data that underpins these models. By systematically collecting, validating, and indexing these models, the PDB has accelerated structural biology discoveries, enabling researchers to compare new entries against a vast archive of solved structures and, more recently, powering protein structure prediction. Leveraging this wealth of data, structural bioinformatics has uncovered patterns, such as conserved protein folds, binding‑site features, or subtle conformational shifts among related proteins, that would be impossible to detect from any single structure. Through the democratization of structural data and open-source analytical tools, now amplified by the power of large language models, a broader community of researchers is equipped to drive new scientific discoveries using structural data. However, good structural bioinformatics requires understanding some of the nuances of the underlying experimental data, data encoding conventions, and quality control metrics that can affect a model's precision, fit‑to‑data, and comparability. This knowledge, combined with developing good controls, statistics, and connections to other databases, is essential for drawing accurate and reliable conclusions from PDB data. Here, we outline 10 recommendations for doing structural bioinformatic analyses crafted to pave the way for others to uncover exciting discoveries.
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.