Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42644567›Full record

ArticleFEBS open bio2026

Comparative assessment of crystallographic and cryo-EM models in the Protein Data Bank.

Alexander Wlodawer, Pawel Rubach, Zbigniew Dauter, Wojciech Dec, Dariusz Brzezinski, Marta Kulik, Wladek Minor, Mariusz Jaskolski

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in FEBS open bio, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Alexander WlodawerLaboratory of Cell Biology, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5510-9703
Pawel RubachDepartment of Molecular Physiology and Biological Physics, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5487-609X
Zbigniew DauterHKLResearch, Charlottesville, VA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8806-9066
Wojciech DecDepartment of Molecular Physiology and Biological Physics, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-9312-9804
Dariusz BrzezinskiInstitute of Computing Science, Poznan University of Technology, Poland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9723-525X
Marta KulikFaculty of Chemistry, Biological and Chemical Research Centre, University of Warsaw, Poland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2381-7665
Wladek MinorDepartment of Molecular Physiology and Biological Physics, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7075-7090
Mariusz JaskolskiInstitute of Bioorganic Chemistry, Polish Academy of Sciences, Poznan, Poland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1587-6489

Funding

Harrison Family Funds, UVaKrystyna Lesiak Foundation, UVaNIH intramural program
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With cryogenic electron microscopy (cryo-EM) on track to surpass X-ray crystallography as the preferred method for determining macromolecular structures, it is important to evaluate and compare the quality of structure models obtained by these methods. This allows us to assess whether the rapidly growing numbers (quantity) correlate with quality and to identify areas in which each method excels or falls short. Selected quality-related parameters were compared for 97 200 crystal structures and 30 139 cryo-EM structures released by the Protein Data Bank (PDB) between 2015 and 2025. Comparison of geometric and stereochemical parameters indicated that, despite significant differences in the resolution of the experimental data, these values were, in the vast majority of cases, close to the expected targets. Nevertheless, we found that crystal structures tend to exhibit more Ramachandran and rotamer outliers than cryo-EM structures, although they unexpectedly have lower clashscore values. Separately, we compared the quality of 612 crystal and 1817 cryo-EM structures in the PDB representing complete ribosomes or their subunits. For this subset of very large, well-defined macromolecules, we found that the quality of many cryo-EM models is higher than that of their crystal counterparts, and that the best cryo-EM structures were also determined at higher resolution. Overall, we conclude that the availability of both techniques has clearly resulted in major advances during the last decade and bodes very well for the future.

Indexed as

cryo‐EMcryo‐EM validationcrystallographyElectron Microscopy Data BankProtein Data Bank

Identifiers

PMID42644567
PMCPMC13508841

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.