Skip to main content
Journal cover image

Model validation: local diagnosis, correction and when to quit.

Publication ,  Journal Article
Richardson, JS; Williams, CJ; Hintze, BJ; Chen, VB; Prisant, MG; Videau, LL; Richardson, DC
Published in: Acta Crystallogr D Struct Biol
February 1, 2018

Traditionally, validation was considered to be a final gatekeeping function, but refinement is smoother and results are better if model validation actively guides corrections throughout structure solution. This shifts emphasis from global to local measures: primarily geometry, conformations and sterics. A fit into the wrong local minimum conformation usually produces outliers in multiple measures. Moving to the right local minimum should be prioritized, rather than small shifts across arbitrary borderlines. Steric criteria work best with all explicit H atoms. `Backrub' motions should be used for side chains and `P-perp' diagnostics to correct ribose puckers. A `water' may actually be an ion, a relic of misfitting or an unmodeled alternate. Beware of wishful thinking in modeling ligands. At high resolution, internally consistent alternate conformations should be modeled and geometry in poor density should not be downweighted. At low resolution, CaBLAM should be used to diagnose protein secondary structure and ERRASER to correct RNA backbone. All atoms should not be forced inside density, beware of sequence misalignment, and very rare conformations such as cis-non-Pro peptides should be avoided. Automation continues to improve, but the crystallographer still must look at each outlier, in the context of density, and correct most of them. For the valid few with unambiguous density and something that is holding them in place, a functional reason should be sought. The expectation is a few outliers, not zero.

Duke Scholars

Altmetric Attention Stats
Dimensions Citation Stats

Published In

Acta Crystallogr D Struct Biol

DOI

EISSN

2059-7983

Publication Date

February 1, 2018

Volume

74

Issue

Pt 2

Start / End Page

132 / 142

Location

United States

Related Subject Headings

  • Validation Studies as Topic
  • RNA
  • Proteins
  • Models, Molecular
  • Methods
  • Crystallography, X-Ray
 

Citation

APA
Chicago
ICMJE
MLA
NLM
Richardson, J. S., Williams, C. J., Hintze, B. J., Chen, V. B., Prisant, M. G., Videau, L. L., & Richardson, D. C. (2018). Model validation: local diagnosis, correction and when to quit. Acta Crystallogr D Struct Biol, 74(Pt 2), 132–142. https://doi.org/10.1107/S2059798317009834
Richardson, Jane S., Christopher J. Williams, Bradley J. Hintze, Vincent B. Chen, Michael G. Prisant, Lizbeth L. Videau, and David C. Richardson. “Model validation: local diagnosis, correction and when to quit.Acta Crystallogr D Struct Biol 74, no. Pt 2 (February 1, 2018): 132–42. https://doi.org/10.1107/S2059798317009834.
Richardson JS, Williams CJ, Hintze BJ, Chen VB, Prisant MG, Videau LL, et al. Model validation: local diagnosis, correction and when to quit. Acta Crystallogr D Struct Biol. 2018 Feb 1;74(Pt 2):132–42.
Richardson, Jane S., et al. “Model validation: local diagnosis, correction and when to quit.Acta Crystallogr D Struct Biol, vol. 74, no. Pt 2, Feb. 2018, pp. 132–42. Pubmed, doi:10.1107/S2059798317009834.
Richardson JS, Williams CJ, Hintze BJ, Chen VB, Prisant MG, Videau LL, Richardson DC. Model validation: local diagnosis, correction and when to quit. Acta Crystallogr D Struct Biol. 2018 Feb 1;74(Pt 2):132–142.
Journal cover image

Published In

Acta Crystallogr D Struct Biol

DOI

EISSN

2059-7983

Publication Date

February 1, 2018

Volume

74

Issue

Pt 2

Start / End Page

132 / 142

Location

United States

Related Subject Headings

  • Validation Studies as Topic
  • RNA
  • Proteins
  • Models, Molecular
  • Methods
  • Crystallography, X-Ray