Quality assessment for molecular models: Difference between revisions

Wayne Decatur (talk | contribs)
add deep learning validation methods that are gaining traction
Wayne Decatur (talk | contribs)
fix a typo
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 51: Line 51:
There are several free automated servers that can improve most published models. See [[Improving published models]].
There are several free automated servers that can improve most published models. See [[Improving published models]].


Recently, new methods for protein structure validation based on the compatibility of a structure with the inter-residue distances and contacts predicted by methods such as AlphaFold 2 have been introduced <ref]https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36458613/</ref>. Then all 3-5Å resolution cryo-EM and crystallogrpahic structures in the PDB with that method, identifying thousands of likely register errors via these scans for locally incorrect PDB structures <ref>https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.07.19.604304</ref>.  
Recently, new methods for protein structure validation based on the compatibility of a structure with the inter-residue distances and contacts predicted by methods such as AlphaFold 2 have been introduced <ref>PMID: 36458613/</ref>. Then all 3-5Å resolution cryo-EM and crystallographic structures in the PDB with that method, identifying thousands of likely register errors via these scans for locally incorrect PDB structures <ref>https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.07.19.604304</ref>.  


==Further Reading==
==Further Reading==

Proteopedia Page Contributors and Editors (what is this?)Proteopedia Page Contributors and Editors (what is this?)

Eric Martz, Eran Hodis, Wayne Decatur