Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 12,648

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Improved methods for building protein models in electron density maps and the location of errors in these models

Jones, T. A., Zou, J. Y., Cowan, S. W., Kjeldgaard, M.·1991·Acta Crystallographica Section A Foundations of Crystallography

Abstract

Map interpretation remains a critical step in solving the structure of a macromolecule. Errors introduced at this early stage may persist throughout crystallographic refinement and result in an incorrect structure. The normally quoted crystallographic residual is often a poor description for the quality of the model. Strategies and tools are described that help to alleviate this problem. These simplify the model-building process, quantify the goodness of fit of the model on a per-residue basis and locate possible errors in peptide and side-chain conformations.

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 · 10.1107/s0108767390010224

Cites

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

Cited by

Items 101–200 of 294

Metadata

Authors
Jones, T. A., Zou, J. Y., Cowan, S. W., & Kjeldgaard, M.
Venue
Acta Crystallographica Section A Foundations of Crystallography
Published
1991-03-01
Volume
47
Issue
2
Pages
110-119
ISSN
0108-7673 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2013083986
Cited by
12,648
References
0
FWCI
106.34
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

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.