Literature DB >> 23751279

Estimating structure quality trends in the Protein Data Bank by equivalent resolution.

Anurag Bagaria1, Victor Jaravine, Peter Güntert.   

Abstract

The quality of protein structures obtained by different experimental and ab-initio calculation methods varies considerably. The methods have been evolving over time by improving both experimental designs and computational techniques, and since the primary aim of these developments is the procurement of reliable and high-quality data, better techniques resulted on average in an evolution toward higher quality structures in the Protein Data Bank (PDB). Each method leaves a specific quantitative and qualitative "trace" in the PDB entry. Certain information relevant to one method (e.g. dynamics for NMR) may be lacking for another method. Furthermore, some standard measures of quality for one method cannot be calculated for other experimental methods, e.g. crystal resolution or NMR bundle RMSD. Consequently, structures are classified in the PDB by the method used. Here we introduce a method to estimate a measure of equivalent X-ray resolution (e-resolution), expressed in units of Å, to assess the quality of any type of monomeric, single-chain protein structure, irrespective of the experimental structure determination method. We showed and compared the trends in the quality of structures in the Protein Data Bank over the last two decades for five different experimental techniques, excluding theoretical structure predictions. We observed that as new methods are introduced, they undergo a rapid method development evolution: within several years the e-resolution score becomes similar for structures obtained from the five methods and they improve from initially poor performance to acceptable quality, comparable with previously established methods, the performance of which is essentially stable.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Equivalent resolution; Multiple linear regression; PDB; Protein structure validation; Structure quality; X-ray and NMR

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23751279     DOI: 10.1016/j.compbiolchem.2013.04.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Comput Biol Chem        ISSN: 1476-9271            Impact factor:   2.877


  5 in total

1.  Protein folding optimization based on 3D off-lattice model via an improved artificial bee colony algorithm.

Authors:  Bai Li; Mu Lin; Qiao Liu; Ya Li; Changjun Zhou
Journal:  J Mol Model       Date:  2015-09-17       Impact factor: 1.810

2.  A public database of macromolecular diffraction experiments.

Authors:  Marek Grabowski; Karol M Langner; Marcin Cymborowski; Przemyslaw J Porebski; Piotr Sroka; Heping Zheng; David R Cooper; Matthew D Zimmerman; Marc André Elsliger; Stephen K Burley; Wladek Minor
Journal:  Acta Crystallogr D Struct Biol       Date:  2016-10-28       Impact factor: 7.652

Review 3.  Quality assessment of protein NMR structures.

Authors:  Antonio Rosato; Roberto Tejero; Gaetano T Montelione
Journal:  Curr Opin Struct Biol       Date:  2013-09-21       Impact factor: 6.809

Review 4.  Protein crystallography for aspiring crystallographers or how to avoid pitfalls and traps in macromolecular structure determination.

Authors:  Alexander Wlodawer; Wladek Minor; Zbigniew Dauter; Mariusz Jaskolski
Journal:  FEBS J       Date:  2013-09-18       Impact factor: 5.542

5.  A comparative anatomy of protein crystals: lessons from the automatic processing of 56 000 samples.

Authors:  Olof Svensson; Maciej Gilski; Didier Nurizzo; Matthew W Bowler
Journal:  IUCrJ       Date:  2019-07-10       Impact factor: 4.769

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.