Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 729

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Evaluating protein structures determined by structural genomics consortia

Bhattacharya, Aneerban, Tejero, Roberto, Montelione, Gaetano T.·2007·Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics

Abstract

Structural genomics projects are providing large quantities of new 3D structural data for proteins. To monitor the quality of these data, we have developed the protein structure validation software suite (PSVS), for assessment of protein structures generated by NMR or X‐ray crystallographic methods. PSVS is broadly applicable for structure quality assessment in structural biology projects. The software integrates under a single interface analyses from several widely‐used structure quality evaluation tools, including PROCHECK (Laskowski et al., J Appl Crystallog 1993;26:283–291), MolProbity (Lovell et al., Proteins 2003;50:437–450), Verify3D (Luthy et al., Nature 1992;356:83–85), ProsaII (Sippl, Proteins 1993;17: 355–362), the PDB validation software, and various structure‐validation tools developed in our own laboratory. PSVS provides standard constraint analyses, statistics on goodness‐of‐fit between structures and experimental data, and knowledge‐based structure quality scores in standardized format suitable for database integration. The analysis provides both global and site‐specific measures of protein structure quality. Global quality measures are reported as Z scores, based on calibration with a set of high‐resolution X‐ray crystal structures. PSVS is particularly useful in assessing protein structures determined by NMR methods, but is also valuable for assessing X‐ray crystal structures or homology models. Using these tools, we assessed protein structures generated by the Northeast Structural Genomics Consortium and other international structural genomics projects, over a 5‐year period. Protein structures produced from structural genomics projects exhibit quality score distributions similar to those of structures produced in traditional structural biology projects during the same time period. However, while some NMR structures have structure quality scores similar to those seen in higher‐resolution X‐ray crystal structures, the majority of NMR structures have lower scores. Potential reasons for this “structure quality score gap” between NMR and X‐ray crystal structures are discussed. Proteins 2007. © 2006 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/prot.21165

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 729

Metadata

Authors
Bhattacharya, A., Tejero, R., & Montelione, G. T.
Venue
Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-02-13
Volume
66
Issue
4
Pages
778-795
ISSN
  • 0887-3585 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0134
OpenAlex
W1991285104
Cited by
729
References
4
FWCI
10.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evaluating protein structures determined by structural genomics consortia. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/prot.21165
The paper
Bhattacharya, A., Tejero, R., & Montelione, G. T. (2007). Evaluating protein structures determined by structural genomics consortia. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics. https://doi.org/10.1002/prot.21165

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.