Abstract
Our understanding of the structure–function relationships of biomolecules and thereby applying it to drug discovery programs are substantially dependent on the availability of the structural information of ligand–protein complexes. However, the correct interpretation of the electron density of a small molecule bound to a crystal structure of a macromolecule is not trivial. Our analysis involving quality assessment of ~0.28 million small molecule–protein binding site pairs derived from crystal structures corresponding to ~66,000 PDB entries indicates that the majority (65%) of the pairs might need little (54%) or no (11%) attention. Out of the remaining 35% of pairs that need attention, 11% of the pairs (including structures with high/moderate resolution) pose serious concerns. Unfortunately, most users of crystal structures lack the training to evaluate the quality of a crystal structure against its experimental data and, in general, rely on the resolution as a ‘gold standard’ quality metric. Our work aims to sensitize the non-crystallographers that resolution, which is a global quality metric, need not be an accurate indicator of local structural quality. In this article, we demonstrate the use of several freely available tools that quantify local structural quality and are easy to use from a non-crystallographer’s perspective. We further propose a few solutions for consideration by the scientific community to promote quality research in structural biology and applied areas.
Highlights
Macromolecular X-ray crystallography (MX) has advanced greatly since the report of the first protein crystal structure of myoglobin in 1958 [1]
We performed a quality assessment of ~0.28 million pairs of small molecule ligands and respective protein binding site residues using VHELIBS [21]
We assessed the quality of protein–small molecule crystal complexes deposited in the Protein Data Bank (PDB) [4] against the available crystallography-dependent parameters
Summary
Macromolecular X-ray crystallography (MX) has advanced greatly since the report of the first protein crystal structure of myoglobin (resolved at 6 Å) in 1958 [1]. On the other hand, such technological advances have enabled many untrained researchers to attempt MX. Other techniques such as nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) [2]. In accordance with the trend of the entire PDB [5], most of the SARS-CoV-2 protein structures currently available in the PDB were obtained using MX [6]. Reports show that structural data obtained from the PDB drive research efforts in various interdisciplinary areas beyond the boundaries of classical structural biology [9]
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.