ArticleActa crystallographica. Section D, Structural biology2026
Avoiding pitfalls when modelling ligands in macromolecular crystallography.
Article in Acta crystallographica. Section D, Structural biology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The determination of protein-ligand complex structures by X-ray crystallography is a cornerstone of modern structure-guided drug discovery. However, the process is complex and fraught with potential pitfalls at every stage, from data collection to final model deposition. The presence of flawed or misinterpreted ligand models in the Protein Data Bank (PDB) can misdirect scientific efforts that rely on them as the basis for new hypotheses and experiments. This article outlines a practical approach for ligand validation during structure determination. We discuss the application of validation tools, such as those in Coot, MolProbity, Mogul and Buster-report, to avoid errors. By re-examining several deposited PDB entries, we illustrate key pitfalls, including (i) modelling a ligand into absent or ambiguous electron density, (ii) incorrect chemical definitions (e.g. chirality, tautomers), (iii) poor fit of parts of a ligand to the electron density and (iv) data/model mismatches during deposition. We emphasize the importance of a `null-hypothesis' approach and continuous critical assessment throughout the modelling process to improve the reliability of deposited structures.
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.