JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for CCP4BB Archives


CCP4BB Archives

CCP4BB Archives


CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CCP4BB Home

CCP4BB Home

CCP4BB  September 2016

CCP4BB September 2016

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Another puzzle: 5gnn

From:

Gerard Bricogne <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Gerard Bricogne <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 7 Sep 2016 15:20:11 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (100 lines)

Dear all,

     While the thread on "Another MR pi(t)fall" is still lukewarm, and
the discussion it triggered hopefully still present in readers' minds,
I would like to bring another puzzling entry to the BB's attention. 

     When reviewing on Monday the weekend's BUSTER runs on the last
batch of PDB depositions, Andrew Sharff (here) noticed that entry 5gnn
had been flagged as giving much larger R-values when re-refined with 
BUSTER (0.3590/0.3880) than the deposited ones (0.2210/0.2500). This
led us to carry out some investigation of that entry.

     The deposited coordinates were flagged by BUSTER as having 4602
bond-length violations, the worst being 205.8 sigmas, and other wild
outliers. The initial Molprobity analysis gave a clash score of near
100, placing it in the 0-th percentile. The PDB validation report is
dominantly red and ochre, with only a few wisps of green. 

     Examining the model and map with Coot showed "waters, waters
everywhere", disconnected density, and molecules separated by large
layers of water. The PDB header lists hundreds of water molecules in
REMARK 525 records that are further than 5.0 Angs from the nearest
chain, some of them up to 15 Angs away.

     The cartoons on the NCBI server at 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Structure/mmdb/mmdbsrv.cgi?uid=142582&dps=1

show random coils threaded up and down through beta-strands, and the
one on the RCSB PDB site at 

       http://www.rcsb.org/pdb/explore.do?structureId=5GNN

also shows mostly random coil, with only very few and very short
segments of secondary structure.

     In reciprocal space, an oddness of a different kind is that if
one looks at the mtz file, the amplitudes and their sigmas are on a
very small scale. However the STARANISO display shows a smooth and
plausible distribution of I/sig(I) to the full nominal resolution
limit of 1.6A.

     Looking at the publication associated with this entry
     
             http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27492925

indicates that the structure was solved by MR from a model obtained
from a structure prediction server (I-TASSER). No further details are
given, even in the Supplemental Material. Table 1 does report a
MolProbity clash score of 103.59, as well as 10% Ramachandran outliers
and 25.51% rotamer outliers. It also contains a mention of a twinning
operator -h, -k, l with a twinning fraction of 0.5, although there is
no mention of it in the text nor in the PDB file.

     I will follow my own advice and resist the temptation of calling
this "the end of civilisation as we know it", but this is startling.
Perhaps we have over-advertised to the non-experts the few successes
of structure prediction programs as reliable sources of MR models and
thus created unwarranted optimism, besides the usual exaggeration of
the degree to which X-ray crystallography has become a push-button
commodity that can deliver results to untrained users. What is also
disconcerting is that the abundant alarm bells that rang along the way
(the MolProbity clash score and geometry reports, the contents of the
PDB validation report, and simple common sense when examining electron
density and model) failed to make anyone involved along the way take
notice that there was something seriously wrong.

     This case seems to bring to the forefront even more vividly than
4nl6 and 4nl7 some collective issues that we face. Here the problem is
not one of contamination of a protein prep resulting in crystals of
"the wrong protein": there is also a more diffuse contamination by
deficiencies of judgement, expertise and vigilance at several
consecutive stages, including refereeing and publication.

     Validation is a hot topic at the moment, and this may serve as a
concrete example that some joined-up thinking and action is indeed a 
matter of urgency, and that extreme scenarios of things going wrong do
not exist solely in the imaginations of obsessive-compulsive/paranoid
validators.

     I am grateful to several colleagues for correspondance and
discussions on the matters touched upon on this message.


     With best wishes,
     
          Gerard

-- 

     ===============================================================
     *                                                             *
     * Gerard Bricogne                     [log in to unmask]  *
     *                                                             *
     * Global Phasing Ltd.                                         *
     * Sheraton House, Castle Park         Tel: +44-(0)1223-353033 *
     * Cambridge CB3 0AX, UK               Fax: +44-(0)1223-366889 *
     *                                                             *
     ===============================================================

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager