Hi Rhys,

the reported B-factors for the “ligands” are all way below the reported 
B-factors for the protein chains, with the worst of the three complexes 
reporting unitless numbers 23.2 and 64.8, respectively, just to highlight *one* 
striking feature of the data collection and refinement table. So even with the 
limited info normally available to reviewers this table should have raised a 
red flag. After the re-refinement suggested by others, i.e. your own proper 
assessment of the crystallographic data, if you do not find noteworthy density 
you may want to contact the article’s editor with your results. If you work in 
this field, i.e. really care about this paper scientifically and you are not 
afraid to confront the authors you could suggest writing a comment/direct 
response article but in my opinion that would only make sense if you can be 
sure beforehand that it will be linked visibly to the actual paper, else it 
will be a waste of time. And don’t forget that just because one or some of the 
authors did a bad job at the crystallographic end other findings of the paper 
might still be solid – in collaborations often one author is unable to 
critically evaluate another author’s contribution and this would not be the 
first case were good synthetic or biological work is presented along with a bad 
crystal structure.

By the way and a bit ironically this protein may have suffered bad 
crystallography/scientific practice before - I think it was one of the fake 
Krishna Murthy structures, right? The associated (now retracted) article I mean 
is here

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002228360093924X?via%3Dihub 

Kind regards, Bärbel

---

Bärbel Blaum, PhD

Inthera Bioscience AG

Einsiedlerstrasse 34

CH-8820 Waedenswil

Switzerland

E-Mail: baerbel.bl...@intherabio.com

Phone: +41 43 477 94 72--

 

 

 

Von: CCP4 bulletin board <CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK> im Auftrag von "Manfred S. 
Weiss" <manfred.we...@helmholtz-berlin.de>
Antworten an: "Manfred S. Weiss" <manfred.we...@helmholtz-berlin.de>
Datum: Freitag, 19. Juli 2019 um 16:03
An: <CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
Betreff: Re: [ccp4bb] Questionable Ligand Density: 6MO0, 6MO1, 6MO2

 

Hi Rhys,

all three structures are at modest resolution and they don't seem to
be properly refined. At least they are all below average. I wonder
how this paper made it past the referees.

I haven't checked the paper, but there are ways and means how to
deal with weakly bound ligands in the best possible way. One aspect
is to improve the phases as much as possible without having the ligand
present. This was obviously NOT done. Another way is to use the
PANDDA approach, which relies on having many data sets available. 
I suppose that this was also not done.

The best way to check is to delete the ligand and so some extensive 
refinement in order to remove the phase bias introduced by the
ligand. Only then you can reliably assess whether something is there
or not.

Cheers, Manfred

Am 19.07.2019 um 15:21 schrieb Rhys Grinter:

Hi All, 

 

I was chatting with a colleague during a recent synchrotron visit and they'd 
recently come across some ligand/drug bound structures associated with a paper 
recently published in a high impact factor journal.

 

They had pulled the associated SFs from the PDB and found that the electron 
density associated with these ligands didn't match that reported in the paper 
and certainly wasn't sufficient to model the alleged ligand.

 

I also pulled the structure factors and after refinement in the 
presence/absence of the alleged ligand I also feel that the density present 
does not warrant modelling of the ligand. 

 

I was hoping that the community might be able to give me an outside opinion on 
these datasets (PDB IDs: 6MO0, 6MO1, 6MO2) and if the problem associated with 
the data is verified, provide some advice on how to proceed. 

 

This isn't the first occasion I've seen ligand bound structures with 
questionable density deposited in association with papers in well respected 
journals. Despite improvements to validation I feel that this problem is 
widespread.

 

Best Regards,

 

Rhys
 

-- 

Dr Rhys Grinter 

NHMRC Postdoctoral Researcher

Monash University

+61 (0)3 9902 9213

+61 (0)403 896 767

 

To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1 



-- 
Dr. Manfred S. Weiss
Macromolecular Crystallography
Helmholtz-Zentrum Berlin
Albert-Einstein-Str. 15
D-12489 Berlin
Germany
 


Helmholtz-Zentrum Berlin für Materialien und Energie GmbH

Mitglied der Hermann von Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft Deutscher Forschungszentren e.V.

Aufsichtsrat: Vorsitzender Dr. Volkmar Dietz, stv. Vorsitzende Dr. Jutta 
Koch-Unterseher
Geschäftsführung: Prof. Dr. Bernd Rech (Sprecher), Prof. Dr. Jan Lüning, Thomas 
Frederking

Sitz Berlin, AG Charlottenburg, 89 HRB 5583

Postadresse:
Hahn-Meitner-Platz 1
D-14109 Berlin

To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1 


########################################################################

To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1

Reply via email to