Dear all,

My apologies for the spam-like nature of my post, but I would like to draw your attention to an important issue (outlined in an upcoming short communication to Acta D, which will appear at doi:10.1107/S1399004715000826 once it's online). At present, neither the structural quality checks in commonly-used crystallography packages nor those run on deposition of a structure to the PDB are flagging the presence of non-proline cis peptide bonds. This has led to the presence of many erroneous cis bonds creeping into the PDB - primarily in low-resolution structures as one would expect, but I have identified clearly erroneous examples in structures with resolutions as high as 1.3 Angstroms. From my analysis, I estimate that a few thousand structures have been affected to some extent, with the worst cases having as high as 3% of their peptide bonds in cis. Particularly if you have published anything >2.5 Angstroms in the past few years, may I gently suggest that you make a quick double-check of your deposited structures? This can be done quickly and simply in Coot (Extensions-Modelling-Residues with Cis peptide bonds).

Best regards,

Tristan