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  August 2007

CCP4BB August 2007

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: The importance of USING our validation tools

From:

"Miller, Mitchell D." <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Miller, Mitchell D.

Date:

Mon, 20 Aug 2007 08:53:26 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (138 lines)

Hi Boaz,
  We were informed by an RCSB annotator in April 2006 that the
RCSB had suspended including REMARK 42 records in PDB files
pending the review of the process by the wwPDB.

  In looking at the new annotation guidelines, it looks
like the result of that review was to reject the REMARK 42 
record and the listing of additional validation items.  
See page 23 of the July 2007 "wwPDB Processing Procedures 
and Policies Document"
http://www.wwpdb.org/documentation/wwPDB-A-20070712.pdf

"REMARK 42 and use of other programs for validation Use of REMARK 42 is
discontinued.

If authors wish to indicate presubmission validation and other programs used before
deposition, the programs may be listed in a new remark, REMARK 40. This remark will
list the software name, authors and function of the program. Results of the software will
not be listed. Use of this remark is voluntary."

It seems that the wwPDB only allows the inclusion of validation 
statistics output by the refinement program but not from additional 
validation programs. So for additional statistics to be included 
in the PDB header, they will either need to be implemented by the 
refinement package or the wwPDB annotators.

Regards,
Mitch 

________________________________

From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Boaz Shaanan
Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2007 2:38 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] The importance of USING our validation tools


Curiously enough, when I've recently submitted a coordinates file to RCSB with this Molprobity summary (as remark 42; it is added onto the analyzed file by the Molprobity program) it was deleted by the RCSB team.
 
          Boaz

----- Original Message -----
From: "George M. Sheldrick" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Saturday, August 18, 2007 15:27
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] The importance of USING our validation tools
To: [log in to unmask]

> There are good reasons for preserving frames, but most of all for the 
> crystals that appeared to diffract but did not lead to a successful 
> structure solution, publication, and PDB deposition. Maybe in the future 
> there will be improved data processing software (for example to integrate 
> non-merohedral twins) that will enable good structures to be obtained from 
> such data. At the moment most such data is thrown away. However, forcing 
> everyone to deposit their frames each time they deposit a structure with 
> the PDB would be a thorough nuisance and major logistic hassle.
> 
> It is also a complete illusion to believe that the reviewers for Nature 
> etc. would process or even look at frames, even if they could download 
> them with the manuscript. 
> 
> For small molecules, many journals require an 'ORTEP plot' to be submitted 
> with the paper. As older readers who have experienced Dick Harlow's 'ORTEP 
> of the year' competition at ACA Meetings will remember, even a viewer 
> with little experience of small-molecule crystallography can see from the 
> ORTEP plot within seconds if something is seriously wrong, and many 
> non-crystallographic referees for e.g. the journal Inorganic Chemistry 
> can even make a good guess as to what is wrong (e.g wrong element assigned 
> to an atom). It would be nice if we could find something similar for 
> macromolecules that the author would have to submit with the paper. One 
> immediate bonus is that the authors would look at it carefully 
> themselves before submitting, which could lead to an improvement of the 
> quality of structures being submitted. My suggestion is that the wwPDB 
> might provide say a one-page diagnostic summary when they allocate each 
> PDB ID that could be used for this purpose.
> 
> A good first pass at this would be the output that the MolProbity server 
> http://molprobity.biochem.duke.edu/ sends when is given a PDB file. It 
> starts with a few lines of summary in which bad things are marked red 
> and the structure is assigned to a pecentile: a percentile of 6% means 
> that 93% of the sturcture in the PDB with a similar resolution are 
> 'better' and 5% are 'worse'. This summary can be understood with very 
> little crystallographic background and a similar summary can 
> of course be produced for NMR structures. The summary is followed by 
> diagnostics for each residue, normally if the summary looks good it 
> would not be necessary for the editor or referee to look at the rest.
> 
> Although this server was intended to help us to improve our structures 
> rather than detect manipulated or fabricated data, I asked it for a 
> report on 2HR0 to see what it would do (probably many other people were 
> trying to do exactly the same, the server was slower than usual). 
> Although the structure got poor marks on most tests, MolProbity 
> generously assigned it overall to the 6th pecentile, I suppose that 
> this is about par for structures submitted to Nature (!). However there 
> was one feature that was unlike anything I have ever seen before 
> although I have fed the MolProbity server with some pretty ropey PDB 
> files in the past: EVERY residue, including EVERY WATER molecule, made 
> either at least one bad contact or was a Ramachandran outlier or was a 
> rotamer outlier (or more than one of these). This surely would ring 
> all the alarm bells!
> 
> So I would suggest that the wwPDB could coordinate, with the help of the 
> validation experts, software to produce a short summary report that 
> would be automatically provided in the same email that allocates the PDB 
> ID. This email could make the strong recommendation that the report file 
> be submitted with the publication, and maybe in the fullness of time 
> even the Editors of high profile journals would require this report for 
> the referees (or even read it themselves!). To gain acceptance for such 
> a procedure the report would have to be short and comprehensible to 
> non-crystallographers; the MolProbity summary is an excellent first 
> pass in this respect, but (partially with a view to detecting 
> manipulation of the data) a couple of tests could be added based on the 
> data statistics as reported in the PDB file or even better the 
> reflection data if submitted). Most of the necessary software already 
> exists, much of it produced by regular readers of this bb, it just needs 
> to be adapted so that the results can be digested by referees and 
> editors with little or no crystallographic experience. And most important, 
> a PDB ID should always be released only in combination with such a 
> summary.
> 
> George     
> 
> Prof. George M. Sheldrick FRS
> Dept. Structural Chemistry, 
> University of Goettingen,
> Tammannstr. 4,
> D37077 Goettingen, Germany
> Tel. +49-551-39-3021 or -3068
> Fax. +49-551-39-2582
> 

Boaz Shaanan, Ph.D. 
Dept. of Life Sciences 
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev 
Beer-Sheva 84105 
Israel 
Phone: 972-8-647-2220 ; Fax: 646-1710 
Skype: boaz.shaanan

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

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