ArticleJournal of chemical information and modeling2026
Assessing Metal Ion Assignment Accuracy in Protein Data Bank Models via Elemental Spectroscopy.
Article in Journal of chemical information and modeling, 2026. 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate representation of metal ions in macromolecular structures is critical for chemical interpretation, computational modeling, and machine-learning methods that rely on Protein Data Bank (PDB) entries. However, the elemental identity of metals modeled in crystallographic structures is often inferred indirectly and rarely validated experimentally. Here, we combine Particle Induced X-ray Emission (PIXE) and X-ray Fluorescence Spectroscopy (XRFS) to determine the elemental composition of protein samples used to generate 70 deposited metalloprotein crystal structures. By analyzing the original protein material employed for crystallization, but before the addition of crystallization buffer solutions, we assess whether the modeled metal ions in deposited structures are consistent with experimentally detectable elemental content. We find that in a majority of cases, the metals modeled in the corresponding PDB entries are inconsistent with the metals present in the protein samples before crystallization, or that additional metals are present but not represented in the structural models. Spectroscopic results were integrated with automated crystallographic validation metrics, including real-space Z-difference (RSZD) analysis and systematic rerefinement, to evaluate atomic-number mismatch at metal sites. PIXE and XRFS show strong agreement for dominant elemental signals and provide complementary, scalable approaches for identifying suspect metal assignments. This work does not address physiological or functional metalation but instead highlights a widespread data integrity issue in deposited macromolecular structures, PDB-wide. These results establish an experimentally corroborated link between elemental identity and crystallographic validation metrics, enabling the large-scale detection of chemically inconsistent annotations in structural databases used for computational modeling and machine learning.
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.