WHAT IF Check report

This file was created 2011-12-13 from WHAT_CHECK output by a conversion script. If you are new to WHAT_CHECK, please study the pdbreport pages. There also exists a legend to the output.

Please note that you are looking at an abridged version of the output (all checks that gave normal results have been removed from this report). You can have a look at the Full report instead.

Verification log for pdb2bat.ent

Checks that need to be done early-on in validation

Warning: Matthews Coefficient (Vm) high

The Matthews coefficient [REF] is defined as the density of the protein structure in cubic Angstroms per Dalton. Normal values are between 1.5 (tightly packed, little room for solvent) and 4.0 (loosely packed, much space for solvent). Some very loosely packed structures can get values a bit higher than that.

Very high numbers are most often caused by giving the wrong value for Z on the CRYST1 card (or not giving this number at all), but can also result from large fractions missing out of the molecular weight (e.g. a lot of UNK residues, or DNA/RNA missing from virus structures).

Molecular weight of all polymer chains: 44820.117
Volume of the Unit Cell V= 3722292.3
Space group multiplicity: 16
No NCS symmetry matrices (MTRIX records) found in PDB file
Matthews coefficient for observed atoms and Z high: Vm= 5.191
Vm by authors and this calculated Vm do not agree very well

Warning: Ligands for which a topology was generated automatically

The topology for the ligands in the table below were determined automatically. WHAT IF uses a local copy of Daan van Aalten's Dundee PRODRG server to automatically generate topology information for ligands. For this PDB file that seems to have gone fine, but be aware that automatic topology generation is a complicated task. So, if you get messages that you fail to understand or that you believe are wrong, and one of these ligands is involved, then check the ligand topology first.

 397 BMA   ( 473-)  A  -
 398 MAN   ( 474-)  A  -
 399 MAN   ( 481-)  A  -
 400 MAN   ( 482-)  A  -
 402 SIA   ( 600-)  A  -
 403 MAN   ( 483-)  A  -
 404 BMA   ( 480-)  A  -
 405 FUL   ( 477-)  A  -
 406 NGK   ( 476-)  A  -

Administrative problems that can generate validation failures

Warning: Groups attached to potentially hydrogenbonding atoms

Residues were observed with groups attached to (or very near to) atoms that potentially can form hydrogen bonds. WHAT IF is not very good at dealing with such exceptional cases (Mainly because it's author is not...). So be warned that the hydrogenbonding-related analyses of these residues might be in error.

For example, an aspartic acid can be protonated on one of its delta oxygens. This is possible because the one delta oxygen 'helps' the other one holding that proton. However, if a delta oxygen has a group bound to it, then it can no longer 'help' the other delta oxygen bind the proton. However, both delta oxygens, in principle, can still be hydrogen bond acceptors. Such problems can occur in the amino acids Asp, Glu, and His. I have opted, for now to simply allow no hydrogen bonds at all for any atom in any side chain that somewhere has a 'funny' group attached to it. I know this is wrong, but there are only 12 hours in a day.

 390 NAG   ( 471A)  A  -   O4  bound to  391 NAG   ( 472B)  A  -   C1
 393 NAG   ( 478A)  A  -   O4  bound to  394 NAG   ( 479B)  A  -   C1
 394 NAG   ( 479B)  A  -   O4  bound to  404 BMA   ( 480-)  A  -   C1

Coordinate problems, unexpected atoms, B-factor and occupancy checks

Warning: Missing atoms

The atoms listed in the table below are missing from the entry. If many atoms are missing, the other checks can become less sensitive. Be aware that it often happens that groups at the termini of DNA or RNA are really missing, so that the absence of these atoms normally is neither an error nor the result of poor electron density. Some of the atoms listed here might also be listed by other checks, most noticeably by the options in the previous section that list missing atoms in several categories. The plausible atoms with zero occupancy are not listed here, as they already got assigned a non-zero occupancy, and thus are no longer 'missing'.

 392 NAG   ( 475-)  A      O4
 392 NAG   ( 475-)  A      C4
 392 NAG   ( 475-)  A      C1
 392 NAG   ( 475-)  A      O5
 392 NAG   ( 475-)  A      C5
 392 NAG   ( 475-)  A      C6
 392 NAG   ( 475-)  A      O6
 392 NAG   ( 475-)  A      C3
 392 NAG   ( 475-)  A      O3
 392 NAG   ( 475-)  A      C2
 392 NAG   ( 475-)  A      N2
 392 NAG   ( 475-)  A      C7
 392 NAG   ( 475-)  A      O7
 392 NAG   ( 475-)  A      C8

Warning: What type of B-factor?

WHAT IF does not yet know well how to cope with B-factors in case TLS has been used. It simply assumes that the B-factor listed on the ATOM and HETATM cards are the total B-factors. When TLS refinement is used that assumption sometimes is not correct. TLS seems not mentioned in the header of the PDB file. But anyway, if WHAT IF complains about your B-factors, and you think that they are OK, then check for TLS related B-factor problems first.

Obviously, the temperature at which the X-ray data was collected has some importance too:

Temperature cannot be read from the PDB file. This most likely means that the temperature is listed as NULL (meaning unknown) in the PDB file.

Geometric checks

Warning: Unusual bond lengths

The bond lengths listed in the table below were found to deviate more than 4 sigma from standard bond lengths (both standard values and sigmas for amino acid residues have been taken from Engh and Huber [REF], for DNA they were taken from Parkinson et al [REF]). In the table below for each unusual bond the bond length and the number of standard deviations it differs from the normal value is given.

Atom names starting with "-" belong to the previous residue in the chain. If the second atom name is "-SG*", the disulphide bridge has a deviating length.

  41 VAL   ( 122-)  A      CA   CB    1.62    4.4
  84 VAL   ( 165-)  A      CA   CB    1.64    5.4
 111 VAL   ( 192-)  A      CA   CB    1.61    4.0
 121 THR   ( 202-)  A      CA   CB    1.63    5.0
 150 VAL   ( 231-)  A      CA   CB    1.62    4.5
 159 VAL   ( 240-)  A      CA   CB    1.63    5.1
 161 THR   ( 242-)  A      CA   CB    1.62    4.3
 176 ILE   ( 257-)  A      CA   CB    1.62    4.7
 241 VAL   ( 322-)  A      CA   CB    1.64    5.6
 258 ASN   ( 339-)  A      CG   ND2   1.24   -4.2
 337 ILE   ( 418-)  A      CA   CB    1.65    6.0
 343 VAL   ( 424-)  A      CA   CB    1.61    4.2
 346 ILE   ( 427-)  A      CA   CB    1.64    5.6

Warning: Possible cell scaling problem

Comparison of bond distances with Engh and Huber [REF] standard values for protein residues and Parkinson et al [REF] values for DNA/RNA shows a significant systematic deviation. It could be that the unit cell used in refinement was not accurate enough. The deformation matrix given below gives the deviations found: the three numbers on the diagonal represent the relative corrections needed along the A, B and C cell axis. These values are 1.000 in a normal case, but have significant deviations here (significant at the 99.99 percent confidence level)

There are a number of different possible causes for the discrepancy. First the cell used in refinement can be different from the best cell calculated. Second, the value of the wavelength used for a synchrotron data set can be miscalibrated. Finally, the discrepancy can be caused by a dataset that has not been corrected for significant anisotropic thermal motion.

Please note that the proposed scale matrix has NOT been restrained to obey the space group symmetry. This is done on purpose. The distortions can give you an indication of the accuracy of the determination.

If you intend to use the result of this check to change the cell dimension of your crystal, please read the extensive literature on this topic first. This check depends on the wavelength, the cell dimensions, and on the standard bond lengths and bond angles used by your refinement software.

Unit Cell deformation matrix

 |  1.004519 -0.000607  0.000732|
 | -0.000607  1.003788  0.000274|
 |  0.000732  0.000274  1.004805|
Proposed new scale matrix

 |  0.007131  0.000004 -0.000005|
 |  0.000004  0.007136 -0.000002|
 | -0.000004 -0.000001  0.005211|
With corresponding cell

    A    = 140.237  B   = 140.135  C    = 191.903
    Alpha=  89.969  Beta=  89.917  Gamma=  90.069

The CRYST1 cell dimensions

    A    = 139.600  B   = 139.600  C    = 191.000
    Alpha=  90.000  Beta=  90.000  Gamma=  90.000

Variance: 256.699
(Under-)estimated Z-score: 11.808

Warning: Unusual bond angles

The bond angles listed in the table below were found to deviate more than 4 sigma from standard bond angles (both standard values and sigma for protein residues have been taken from Engh and Huber [REF], for DNA/RNA from Parkinson et al [REF]). In the table below for each strange angle the bond angle and the number of standard deviations it differs from the standard values is given. Please note that disulphide bridges are neglected. Atoms starting with "-" belong to the previous residue in the sequence.

   1 VAL   (  82-)  A      N    CA   C    98.57   -4.5
   2 GLU   (  83-)  A      N    CA   CB  102.05   -5.0
   2 GLU   (  83-)  A      CA   CB   CG  126.21    6.1
   2 GLU   (  83-)  A      CB   CG   CD  104.21   -4.9
   5 ASN   (  86-)  A      CA   CB   CG  116.95    4.4
   6 TRP   (  87-)  A      CB   CG   CD1 119.48   -4.9
   6 TRP   (  87-)  A      CG   CD2  CE2 101.68   -4.6
  10 GLN   (  91-)  A      NE2  CD   OE1 117.16   -5.4
  14 THR   (  95-)  A      N    CA   CB  103.64   -4.0
  14 THR   (  95-)  A      CA   CB   OG1 102.98   -4.4
  16 PHE   (  97-)  A      CA   CB   CG  108.52   -5.3
  18 PRO   (  99-)  A     -CA  -C    N   124.49    5.1
  21 LYS   ( 102-)  A      N    CA   C    99.96   -4.0
  22 ASP   ( 103-)  A      CA   CB   CG  119.21    6.6
  25 ILE   ( 106-)  A     -CA  -C    N   124.61    4.2
  34 TRP   ( 115-)  A      CG   CD2  CE2 102.27   -4.1
  40 TYR   ( 121-)  A      CA   CB   CG  126.21    6.6
  42 SER   ( 123-)  A      N    CA   C    99.50   -4.2
  42 SER   ( 123-)  A      CA   CB   OG  102.93   -4.1
  43 CYS   ( 124-)  A      N    CA   CB   90.40  -11.8
  43 CYS   ( 124-)  A      C    CA   CB  122.92    6.7
  43 CYS   ( 124-)  A      CA   CB   SG  123.80    4.1
  44 ASP   ( 125-)  A      CA   CB   CG  122.18    9.6
  45 PRO   ( 126-)  A     -CA  -C    N   126.07    6.1
  50 GLN   ( 131-)  A      NE2  CD   OE1 116.62   -6.0
And so on for a total of 191 lines.

Warning: Chirality deviations detected

The atoms listed in the table below have an improper dihedral value that is deviating from expected values. As the improper dihedral values are all getting very close to ideal values in recent X-ray structures, and as we actually do not know how big the spread around these values should be, this check only warns for 6 sigma deviations.

Improper dihedrals are a measure of the chirality/planarity of the structure at a specific atom. Values around -35 or +35 are expected for chiral atoms, and values around 0 for planar atoms. Planar side chains are left out of the calculations, these are better handled by the planarity checks.

Three numbers are given for each atom in the table. The first is the Z-score for the improper dihedral. The second number is the measured improper dihedral. The third number is the expected value for this atom type. A final column contains an extra warning if the chirality for an atom is opposite to the expected value.

  95 ILE   ( 176-)  A      CB     6.4    40.67    32.31
 343 VAL   ( 424-)  A      C     -7.3    -9.84     0.15
The average deviation= 1.697

Error: Tau angle problems

The side chains of the residues listed in the table below contain a tau angle (N-Calpha-C) that was found to deviate from te expected value by more than 4.0 times the expected standard deviation. The number in the table is the number of standard deviations this RMS value deviates from the expected value.

 209 ILE   ( 290-)  A    5.69
 111 VAL   ( 192-)  A    5.55
 196 GLU   ( 277-)  A    5.47
 190 SER   ( 271-)  A    5.26
 145 GLN   ( 226-)  A    5.00
 198 SER   ( 279-)  A    4.99
 376 SER   ( 457-)  A    4.80
 148 GLU   ( 229-)  A    4.61
  42 SER   ( 123-)  A    4.60
 249 ASP   ( 330-)  A    4.51
 130 LEU   ( 211-)  A    4.45
   1 VAL   (  82-)  A    4.43
 212 ASP   ( 293-)  A    4.37
 217 SER   ( 298-)  A    4.36
  21 LYS   ( 102-)  A    4.34
 317 VAL   ( 398-)  A    4.25
 343 VAL   ( 424-)  A    4.20
  10 GLN   (  91-)  A    4.18
 363 VAL   ( 444-)  A    4.14
 248 ASP   ( 329-)  A    4.04

Warning: High tau angle deviations

The RMS Z-score for the tau angles (N-Calpha-C) in the structure is too high. For well refined structures this number is expected to be near 1.0. The fact that it is higher than 1.5 worries us. However, we determined the tau normal distributions from 500 high-resolution X-ray structures, rather than from CSD data, so we cannot be 100 percent certain about these numbers.

Tau angle RMS Z-score : 2.105

Torsion-related checks

Warning: Torsion angle evaluation shows unusual residues

The residues listed in the table below contain bad or abnormal torsion angles.

These scores give an impression of how `normal' the torsion angles in protein residues are. All torsion angles except omega are used for calculating a `normality' score. Average values and standard deviations were obtained from the residues in the WHAT IF database. These are used to calculate Z-scores. A residue with a Z-score of below -2.0 is poor, and a score of less than -3.0 is worrying. For such residues more than one torsion angle is in a highly unlikely position.

 144 THR   ( 225-)  A    -2.9
 283 ARG   ( 364-)  A    -2.9
 204 PRO   ( 285-)  A    -2.8
  37 ARG   ( 118-)  A    -2.6
 346 ILE   ( 427-)  A    -2.5
  67 THR   ( 148-)  A    -2.4
 145 GLN   ( 226-)  A    -2.4
 383 ILE   ( 464-)  A    -2.4
  57 THR   ( 138-)  A    -2.4
 368 THR   ( 449-)  A    -2.4
 305 PRO   ( 386-)  A    -2.3
 328 ILE   ( 409-)  A    -2.3
 234 SER   ( 315-)  A    -2.3
 289 LEU   ( 370-)  A    -2.3
 238 SER   ( 319-)  A    -2.2
 207 ARG   ( 288-)  A    -2.2
 172 ARG   ( 253-)  A    -2.1
 114 THR   ( 195-)  A    -2.1
  13 ILE   (  94-)  A    -2.1
 147 SER   ( 228-)  A    -2.1
 146 GLU   ( 227-)  A    -2.1
 251 SER   ( 332-)  A    -2.1
 322 ARG   ( 403-)  A    -2.1
 241 VAL   ( 322-)  A    -2.1
  30 GLY   ( 111-)  A    -2.0
 229 TYR   ( 310-)  A    -2.0
  21 LYS   ( 102-)  A    -2.0

Warning: Backbone evaluation reveals unusual conformations

The residues listed in the table below have abnormal backbone torsion angles.

Residues with `forbidden' phi-psi combinations are listed, as well as residues with unusual omega angles (deviating by more than 3 sigma from the normal value). Please note that it is normal if about 5 percent of the residues is listed here as having unusual phi-psi combinations.

  66 ASP   ( 147-)  A  Poor phi/psi
 128 GLY   ( 209-)  A  Poor phi/psi
 146 GLU   ( 227-)  A  Poor phi/psi
 153 ASN   ( 234-)  A  Poor phi/psi
 196 GLU   ( 277-)  A  Poor phi/psi
 203 TYR   ( 284-)  A  PRO omega poor
 210 CYS   ( 291-)  A  Poor phi/psi
 229 TYR   ( 310-)  A  Poor phi/psi
 234 SER   ( 315-)  A  Poor phi/psi
 241 VAL   ( 322-)  A  Poor phi/psi
 244 THR   ( 325-)  A  PRO omega poor
 248 ASP   ( 329-)  A  Poor phi/psi
 256 CYS   ( 337-)  A  Poor phi/psi
 261 ASN   ( 342-)  A  Poor phi/psi
 266 GLN   ( 347-)  A  Poor phi/psi
 272 ALA   ( 353-)  A  Poor phi/psi
 306 ASN   ( 387-)  A  Poor phi/psi
 312 ASN   ( 393-)  A  Poor phi/psi
 323 SER   ( 404-)  A  Poor phi/psi
 349 ARG   ( 430-)  A  omega poor
 386 MET   ( 467-)  A  PRO omega poor
 chi-1/chi-2 correlation Z-score : -4.698

Error: chi-1/chi-2 angle correlation Z-score very low

The score expressing how well the chi-1/chi-2 angles of all residues correspond to the populated areas in the database is very low.

chi-1/chi-2 correlation Z-score : -4.698

Warning: Unusual backbone conformations

For the residues listed in the table below, the backbone formed by itself and two neighbouring residues on either side is in a conformation that is not seen very often in the database of solved protein structures. The number given in the table is the number of similar backbone conformations in the database with the same amino acid in the centre.

For this check, backbone conformations are compared with database structures using C-alpha superpositions with some restraints on the backbone oxygen positions.

A residue mentioned in the table can be part of a strange loop, or there might be something wrong with it or its directly surrounding residues. There are a few of these in every protein, but in any case it is worth looking at!

   3 TYR   (  84-)  A      0
   4 ARG   (  85-)  A      0
   5 ASN   (  86-)  A      0
   6 TRP   (  87-)  A      0
   7 SER   (  88-)  A      0
  14 THR   (  95-)  A      0
  20 SER   ( 101-)  A      0
  32 ASP   ( 113-)  A      0
  34 TRP   ( 115-)  A      0
  37 ARG   ( 118-)  A      0
  38 GLU   ( 119-)  A      0
  39 PRO   ( 120-)  A      0
  43 CYS   ( 124-)  A      0
  46 VAL   ( 127-)  A      0
  51 PHE   ( 132-)  A      0
  55 GLN   ( 136-)  A      0
  61 ASN   ( 142-)  A      0
  63 HIS   ( 144-)  A      0
  65 ASN   ( 146-)  A      0
  66 ASP   ( 147-)  A      0
  68 VAL   ( 149-)  A      0
  70 ASP   ( 151-)  A      0
  71 ARG   ( 152-)  A      0
  72 ILE   ( 153-)  A      0
  75 ARG   ( 156-)  A      0
And so on for a total of 224 lines.

Warning: Omega angles too tightly restrained

The omega angles for trans-peptide bonds in a structure are expected to give a gaussian distribution with the average around +178 degrees and a standard deviation around 5.5 degrees. These expected values were obtained from very accurately determined structures. Many protein structures are too tightly restrained. This seems to be the case with the current structure too, as the observed standard deviation is below 4.0 degrees.

Standard deviation of omega values : 2.602

Warning: Backbone oxygen evaluation

The residues listed in the table below have an unusual backbone oxygen position.

For each of the residues in the structure, a search was performed to find 5-residue stretches in the WHAT IF database with superposable C-alpha coordinates, and some restraining on the neighbouring backbone oxygens.

In the following table the RMS distance between the backbone oxygen positions of these matching structures in the database and the position of the backbone oxygen atom in the current residue is given. If this number is larger than 1.5 a significant number of structures in the database show an alternative position for the backbone oxygen. If the number is larger than 2.0 most matching backbone fragments in the database have the peptide plane flipped. A manual check needs to be performed to assess whether the experimental data can support that alternative as well. The number in the last column is the number of database hits (maximum 80) used in the calculation. It is "normal" that some glycine residues show up in this list, but they are still worth checking!

 267 GLY   ( 348-)  A   1.63   77

Warning: Unusual PRO puckering amplitudes

The proline residues listed in the table below have a puckering amplitude that is outside of normal ranges. Puckering parameters were calculated by the method of Cremer and Pople [REF]. Normal PRO rings have a puckering amplitude Q between 0.20 and 0.45 Angstrom. If Q is lower than 0.20 Angstrom for a PRO residue, this could indicate disorder between the two different normal ring forms (with C-gamma below and above the ring, respectively). If Q is higher than 0.45 Angstrom something could have gone wrong during the refinement. Be aware that this is a warning with a low confidence level. See: Who checks the checkers? Four validation tools applied to eight atomic resolution structures [REF]

 186 PRO   ( 267-)  A    0.48 HIGH
 245 PRO   ( 326-)  A    0.47 HIGH

Warning: Unusual PRO puckering phases

The proline residues listed in the table below have a puckering phase that is not expected to occur in protein structures. Puckering parameters were calculated by the method of Cremer and Pople [REF]. Normal PRO rings approximately show a so-called envelope conformation with the C-gamma atom above the plane of the ring (phi=+72 degrees), or a half-chair conformation with C-gamma below and C-beta above the plane of the ring (phi=-90 degrees). If phi deviates strongly from these values, this is indicative of a very strange conformation for a PRO residue, and definitely requires a manual check of the data. Be aware that this is a warning with a low confidence level. See: Who checks the checkers? Four validation tools applied to eight atomic resolution structures [REF].

  39 PRO   ( 120-)  A   -61.5 half-chair C-beta/C-alpha (-54 degrees)
  73 PRO   ( 154-)  A    46.5 half-chair C-delta/C-gamma (54 degrees)
 259 PRO   ( 340-)  A  -113.4 envelop C-gamma (-108 degrees)
 305 PRO   ( 386-)  A  -163.2 half-chair N/C-delta (-162 degrees)

Bump checks

Error: Abnormally short interatomic distances

The pairs of atoms listed in the table below have an unusually short interactomic distance; each bump is listed in only one direction.

The contact distances of all atom pairs have been checked. Two atoms are said to `bump' if they are closer than the sum of their Van der Waals radii minus 0.40 Angstrom. For hydrogen bonded pairs a tolerance of 0.55 Angstrom is used. The first number in the table tells you how much shorter that specific contact is than the acceptable limit. The second distance is the distance between the centres of the two atoms. Although we believe that two water atoms at 2.4 A distance are too close, we only report water pairs that are closer than this rather short distance.

The last text-item on each line represents the status of the atom pair. If the final column contains the text 'HB', the bump criterion was relaxed because there could be a hydrogen bond. Similarly relaxed criteria are used for 1-3 and 1-4 interactions (listed as 'B2' and 'B3', respectively). BL indicates that the B-factors of the clashing atoms have a low B-factor thereby making this clash even more worrisome. INTRA and INTER indicate whether the clashes are between atoms in the same asymmetric unit, or atoms in symmetry related asymmetric units, respectively.

 394 NAG   ( 479-)  A      O4  <->  404 BMA   ( 480-)  A      C1     0.99    1.41  INTRA B3
 390 NAG   ( 471-)  A      O6  <->  405 FUL   ( 477-)  A      C1     0.92    1.48  INTRA BF
 394 NAG   ( 479-)  A      C4  <->  404 BMA   ( 480-)  A      C1     0.75    2.45  INTRA
 390 NAG   ( 471-)  A      C6  <->  405 FUL   ( 477-)  A      C1     0.60    2.60  INTRA BF
 102 CYS   ( 183-)  A      SG  <->  151 CYS   ( 232-)  A      SG     0.40    3.05  INTRA BL
 347 ARG   ( 428-)  A      NH2 <->  381 ALA   ( 462-)  A      O      0.27    2.43  INTRA
 103 HIS   ( 184-)  A      CD2 <->  105 GLY   ( 186-)  A      N      0.19    2.91  INTRA BL
 104 ASP   ( 185-)  A      N   <->  408 HOH   ( 703 )  A      O      0.16    2.54  INTRA
 275 ASN   ( 356-)  A      ND2 <->  408 HOH   ( 704 )  A      O      0.12    2.58  INTRA
 165 ALA   ( 246-)  A      O   <->  193 HIS   ( 274-)  A      NE2    0.11    2.59  INTRA
 256 CYS   ( 337-)  A      SG  <->  408 HOH   ( 707 )  A      O      0.11    2.89  INTRA
 249 ASP   ( 330-)  A      O   <->  308 LYS   ( 389-)  A      NZ     0.09    2.61  INTRA
  65 ASN   ( 146-)  A      ND2 <->  390 NAG   ( 471-)  A      O7     0.09    2.61  INTRA BF
 219 ARG   ( 300-)  A      NH1 <->  242 GLY   ( 323-)  A      O      0.08    2.62  INTRA
 101 SER   ( 182-)  A      C   <->  149 CYS   ( 230-)  A      SG     0.08    3.32  INTRA BL
 219 ARG   ( 300-)  A      NH2 <->  268 VAL   ( 349-)  A      O      0.08    2.62  INTRA
 354 ARG   ( 435-)  A      NH2 <->  386 MET   ( 467-)  A      O      0.07    2.63  INTRA
 277 ASN   ( 358-)  A      N   <->  278 ASP   ( 359-)  A      N      0.07    2.53  INTRA B3
 390 NAG   ( 471-)  A      C6  <->  405 FUL   ( 477-)  A      O5     0.07    2.73  INTRA BF
 145 GLN   ( 226-)  A      OE1 <->  408 HOH   ( 695 )  A      O      0.06    2.34  INTRA
 119 ASN   ( 200-)  A      ND2 <->  393 NAG   ( 478-)  A      C7     0.06    3.04  INTRA
 237 CYS   ( 318-)  A      N   <->  408 HOH   ( 694 )  A      O      0.06    2.64  INTRA
  55 GLN   ( 136-)  A      NE2 <->   75 ARG   ( 156-)  A      CZ     0.05    3.05  INTRA BL
 159 VAL   ( 240-)  A      CG2 <->  197 CYS   ( 278-)  A      SG     0.05    3.35  INTRA BL
 192 GLN   ( 273-)  A      OE1 <->  215 LYS   ( 296-)  A      NZ     0.05    2.65  INTRA
  97 TRP   ( 178-)  A      N   <->   98 SER   ( 179-)  A      N      0.05    2.55  INTRA BL
 148 GLU   ( 229-)  A      CD  <->  407 HOH   ( 644 )  A      O      0.05    2.75  INTRA BL
 268 VAL   ( 349-)  A      CG2 <->  290 ARG   ( 371-)  A      NE     0.05    3.05  INTRA
 271 TRP   ( 352-)  A      NE1 <->  293 TYR   ( 374-)  A      OH     0.05    2.65  INTRA BL
 247 ASN   ( 328-)  A      ND2 <->  262 GLU   ( 343-)  A      CG     0.04    3.06  INTRA
  61 ASN   ( 142-)  A      ND2 <->   63 HIS   ( 144-)  A      ND1    0.04    2.96  INTRA
 102 CYS   ( 183-)  A      N   <->  149 CYS   ( 230-)  A      SG     0.04    3.26  INTRA BL
 275 ASN   ( 356-)  A      O   <->  278 ASP   ( 359-)  A      N      0.04    2.66  INTRA
 202 ARG   ( 283-)  A      CZ  <->  207 ARG   ( 288-)  A      NH2    0.03    3.07  INTRA
 239 GLY   ( 320-)  A      N   <->  240 LEU   ( 321-)  A      N      0.02    2.58  INTRA BL
 239 GLY   ( 320-)  A      CA  <->  306 ASN   ( 387-)  A      ND2    0.02    3.08  INTRA BL
 271 TRP   ( 352-)  A      N   <->  407 HOH   ( 655 )  A      O      0.01    2.69  INTRA
 299 ILE   ( 380-)  A      N   <->  309 SER   ( 390-)  A      O      0.01    2.69  INTRA
 153 ASN   ( 234-)  A      CG  <->  395 NAG   ( 484-)  A      N2     0.01    3.09  INTRA BF

Packing, accessibility and threading

Warning: Abnormal packing environment for some residues

The residues listed in the table below have an unusual packing environment.

The packing environment of the residues is compared with the average packing environment for all residues of the same type in good PDB files. A low packing score can indicate one of several things: Poor packing, misthreading of the sequence through the density, crystal contacts, contacts with a co-factor, or the residue is part of the active site. It is not uncommon to see a few of these, but in any case this requires further inspection of the residue.

 168 ARG   ( 249-)  A      -7.23
 372 TYR   ( 453-)  A      -7.13
 203 TYR   ( 284-)  A      -6.55
 266 GLN   ( 347-)  A      -6.42
 202 ARG   ( 283-)  A      -6.26
  71 ARG   ( 152-)  A      -5.80
 334 LYS   ( 415-)  A      -5.80
 257 ARG   ( 338-)  A      -5.77
 119 ASN   ( 200-)  A      -5.24
 192 GLN   ( 273-)  A      -5.12

Warning: Abnormal packing environment for sequential residues

A stretch of at least three sequential residues with a questionable packing environment was found. This could indicate that these residues are part of a strange loop. It might also be an indication of misthreading in the density. However, it can also indicate that one or more residues in this stretch have other problems such as, for example, missing atoms, very weird angles or bond lengths, etc.

The table below lists the first and last residue in each stretch found, as well as the average residue score of the series.

 371 THR   ( 452-)  A       374 - THR    455- ( A)         -5.26

Water, ion, and hydrogenbond related checks

Warning: Water molecules need moving

The water molecules listed in the table below were found to be significantly closer to a symmetry related non-water molecule than to the ones given in the coordinate file. For optimal viewing convenience revised coordinates for these water molecules should be given.

The number in brackets is the identifier of the water molecule in the input file. Suggested coordinates are also given in the table. Please note that alternative conformations for protein residues are not taken into account for this calculation. If you are using WHAT IF / WHAT-CHECK interactively, then the moved waters can be found in PDB format in the file: MOVEDH2O.pdb.

 407 HOH   ( 610 )  A      O     71.11   71.20   62.69
 407 HOH   ( 622 )  A      O     86.86   72.47   51.98
 407 HOH   ( 624 )  A      O     84.73   73.89   50.37
 407 HOH   ( 630 )  A      O     66.97  104.01   61.07
 407 HOH   ( 631 )  A      O     66.63  103.43   58.45
 407 HOH   ( 634 )  A      O     67.76   93.14   40.48
 407 HOH   ( 675 )  A      O     94.63   73.59   71.74
 408 HOH   ( 688 )  A      O     85.80   76.61   64.82
 408 HOH   ( 697 )  A      O     93.24  115.54   49.71
 408 HOH   ( 708 )  A      O     90.66  114.23   47.64

Error: Water molecules without hydrogen bonds

The water molecules listed in the table below do not form any hydrogen bonds, neither with the protein or DNA/RNA, nor with other water molecules. This is a strong indication of a refinement problem. The last number on each line is the identifier of the water molecule in the input file.

 407 HOH   ( 657 )  A      O
Bound group on Asn; dont flip    5 ASN  (  86-) A
Bound to:  389 NAG  ( 470-) A
Bound group on Asn; dont flip   65 ASN  ( 146-) A
Bound to:  390 NAG  ( 471-) A
Bound group on Asn; dont flip  119 ASN  ( 200-) A
Bound to:  393 NAG  ( 478-) A
Bound group on Asn; dont flip  153 ASN  ( 234-) A
Bound to:  395 NAG  ( 484-) A

Error: HIS, ASN, GLN side chain flips

Listed here are Histidine, Asparagine or Glutamine residues for which the orientation determined from hydrogen bonding analysis are different from the assignment given in the input. Either they could form energetically more favourable hydrogen bonds if the terminal group was rotated by 180 degrees, or there is no assignment in the input file (atom type 'A') but an assignment could be made. Be aware, though, that if the topology could not be determined for one or more ligands, then this option will make errors.

  12 GLN   (  93-)  A
  23 ASN   ( 104-)  A
  50 GLN   ( 131-)  A
  61 ASN   ( 142-)  A
  80 ASN   ( 161-)  A
 193 HIS   ( 274-)  A
 253 ASN   ( 334-)  A
 306 ASN   ( 387-)  A
 338 ASN   ( 419-)  A

Warning: Buried unsatisfied hydrogen bond donors

The buried hydrogen bond donors listed in the table below have a hydrogen atom that is not involved in a hydrogen bond in the optimized hydrogen bond network.

Hydrogen bond donors that are buried inside the protein normally use all of their hydrogens to form hydrogen bonds within the protein. If there are any non hydrogen bonded buried hydrogen bond donors in the structure they will be listed here. In very good structures the number of listed atoms will tend to zero.

Waters are not listed by this option.

  12 GLN   (  93-)  A      N
  25 ILE   ( 106-)  A      N
  33 ILE   ( 114-)  A      N
  37 ARG   ( 118-)  A      NH2
  41 VAL   ( 122-)  A      N
  57 THR   ( 138-)  A      N
  71 ARG   ( 152-)  A      NE
  74 HIS   ( 155-)  A      N
  76 THR   ( 157-)  A      N
  86 PHE   ( 167-)  A      N
  92 GLN   ( 173-)  A      N
  95 ILE   ( 176-)  A      N
  98 SER   ( 179-)  A      N
 101 SER   ( 182-)  A      N
 105 GLY   ( 186-)  A      N
 108 TRP   ( 189-)  A      NE1
 118 LYS   ( 199-)  A      N
 121 THR   ( 202-)  A      OG1
 135 GLY   ( 216-)  A      N
 138 SER   ( 219-)  A      N
 147 SER   ( 228-)  A      N
 161 THR   ( 242-)  A      OG1
 167 GLY   ( 248-)  A      N
 188 ALA   ( 269-)  A      N
 193 HIS   ( 274-)  A      N
 238 SER   ( 319-)  A      OG
 248 ASP   ( 329-)  A      N
 252 SER   ( 333-)  A      N
 263 ARG   ( 344-)  A      N
 269 LYS   ( 350-)  A      N
 282 GLY   ( 363-)  A      N
 283 ARG   ( 364-)  A      NE
 283 ARG   ( 364-)  A      NH2
 313 ARG   ( 394-)  A      N
 324 GLY   ( 405-)  A      N
 328 ILE   ( 409-)  A      N
 336 CYS   ( 417-)  A      N
 351 GLN   ( 432-)  A      NE2
 355 VAL   ( 436-)  A      N
 357 TRP   ( 438-)  A      N
 373 GLY   ( 454-)  A      N

Warning: Buried unsatisfied hydrogen bond acceptors

The buried side-chain hydrogen bond acceptors listed in the table below are not involved in a hydrogen bond in the optimized hydrogen bond network.

Side-chain hydrogen bond acceptors buried inside the protein normally form hydrogen bonds within the protein. If there are any not hydrogen bonded in the optimized hydrogen bond network they will be listed here.

Waters are not listed by this option.

  74 HIS   ( 155-)  A      ND1
 103 HIS   ( 184-)  A      ND1
 195 GLU   ( 276-)  A      OE1
 195 GLU   ( 276-)  A      OE2
 310 GLN   ( 391-)  A      OE1

Warning: No crystallisation information

No, or very inadequate, crystallisation information was observed upon reading the PDB file header records. This information should be available in the form of a series of REMARK 280 lines. Without this information a few things, such as checking ions in the structure, cannot be performed optimally.

Warning: Unusual water packing

We implemented the ion valence determination method of Brown and Wu [REF] similar to Nayal and Di Cera [REF] and Mueller, Koepke and Sheldrick [REF]. It must be stated that the validation of ions in PDB files is very difficult. Ideal ion-ligand distances often differ no more than 0.1 Angstrom, and in a 2.0 Angstrom resolution structure 0.1 Angstrom is not very much. Nayal and Di Cera showed that this method nevertheless has great potential for detecting water molecules that actually should be metal ions. The method has not been extensively validated, though. Part of our implementation (comparing waters with multiple ion types) is even fully new and despite that we see it work well in the few cases that are trivial, we must emphasize that this method is untested.

The score listed is the valency score. This number should be close to (preferably a bit above) 1.0 for the suggested ion to be a likely alternative for the water molecule. Ions listed in brackets are good alternate choices. *1 indicates that the suggested ion-type has been observed elsewhere in the PDB file too. *2 indicates that the suggested ion-type has been observed in the REMARK 280 cards of the PDB file. Ion-B and ION-B indicate that the B-factor of this water is high, or very high, respectively. H2O-B indicates that the B-factors of atoms that surround this water/ion are suspicious. See: swift.cmbi.ru.nl/teach/theory/ for a detailed explanation.

 407 HOH   ( 644 )  A      O  0.90  K  4

Warning: Possible wrong residue type

The residues listed in the table below have a weird environment that cannot be improved by rotamer flips. This can mean one of three things, non of which WHAT CHECK really can do much about. 1) The side chain has actually another rotamer than is present in the PDB file; 2) A counter ion is present in the structure but is not given in the PDB file; 3) The residue actually is another amino acid type. The annotation 'Alt-rotamer' indicates that WHAT CHECK thinks you might want to find an alternate rotamer for this residue. The annotation 'Sym-induced' indicates that WHAT CHECK believes that symmetry contacts might have something to do with the difficulties of this residue's side chain. Determination of these two annotations is difficult, so their absence is less meaningful than their presence. The annotation Ligand-bound indicates that a ligand seems involved with this residue. In nine of ten of these cases this indicates that the ligand is causing the weird situation rather than the residue.

 104 ASP   ( 185-)  A   H-bonding suggests Asn; but Alt-Rotamer
 146 GLU   ( 227-)  A   H-bonding suggests Gln
 162 ASP   ( 243-)  A   H-bonding suggests Asn; but Alt-Rotamer
 248 ASP   ( 329-)  A   H-bonding suggests Asn

Final summary

Note: Summary report for users of a structure

This is an overall summary of the quality of the structure as compared with current reliable structures. This summary is most useful for biologists seeking a good structure to use for modelling calculations.

The second part of the table mostly gives an impression of how well the model conforms to common refinement restraint values. The first part of the table shows a number of global quality indicators.


Structure Z-scores, positive is better than average:

  1st generation packing quality :  -1.028
  2nd generation packing quality :  -1.855
  Ramachandran plot appearance   :  -2.461
  chi-1/chi-2 rotamer normality  :  -4.698 (bad)
  Backbone conformation          :  -1.412

RMS Z-scores, should be close to 1.0:
  Bond lengths                   :   0.948
  Bond angles                    :   1.888
  Omega angle restraints         :   0.473 (tight)
  Side chain planarity           :   0.751
  Improper dihedral distribution :   1.431
  B-factor distribution          :   0.618
  Inside/Outside distribution    :   1.054

Note: Summary report for depositors of a structure

This is an overall summary of the quality of the X-ray structure as compared with structures solved at similar resolutions. This summary can be useful for a crystallographer to see if the structure makes the best possible use of the data. Warning. This table works well for structures solved in the resolution range of the structures in the WHAT IF database, which is presently (summer 2008) mainly 1.1 - 1.3 Angstrom. The further the resolution of your file deviates from this range the more meaningless this table becomes.

The second part of the table mostly gives an impression of how well the model conforms to common refinement restraint values. The first part of the table shows a number of global quality indicators, which have been calibrated against structures of similar resolution.

Resolution found in PDB file : 2.00


Structure Z-scores, positive is better than average:

  1st generation packing quality :  -0.8
  2nd generation packing quality :  -1.2
  Ramachandran plot appearance   :  -1.8
  chi-1/chi-2 rotamer normality  :  -3.4 (poor)
  Backbone conformation          :  -1.5

RMS Z-scores, should be close to 1.0:
  Bond lengths                   :   0.948
  Bond angles                    :   1.888
  Omega angle restraints         :   0.473 (tight)
  Side chain planarity           :   0.751
  Improper dihedral distribution :   1.431
  B-factor distribution          :   0.618
  Inside/Outside distribution    :   1.054
==============

WHAT IF
    G.Vriend,
      WHAT IF: a molecular modelling and drug design program,
    J. Mol. Graph. 8, 52--56 (1990).

WHAT_CHECK (verification routines from WHAT IF)
    R.W.W.Hooft, G.Vriend, C.Sander and E.E.Abola,
      Errors in protein structures
    Nature 381, 272 (1996).
    (see also http://swift.cmbi.ru.nl/gv/whatcheck for a course and extra inform

Bond lengths and angles, protein residues
    R.Engh and R.Huber,
      Accurate bond and angle parameters for X-ray protein structure
      refinement,
    Acta Crystallogr. A47, 392--400 (1991).

Bond lengths and angles, DNA/RNA
    G.Parkinson, J.Voitechovsky, L.Clowney, A.T.Bruenger and H.Berman,
      New parameters for the refinement of nucleic acid-containing structures
    Acta Crystallogr. D52, 57--64 (1996).

DSSP
    W.Kabsch and C.Sander,
      Dictionary of protein secondary structure: pattern
      recognition of hydrogen bond and geometrical features
    Biopolymers 22, 2577--2637 (1983).

Hydrogen bond networks
    R.W.W.Hooft, C.Sander and G.Vriend,
      Positioning hydrogen atoms by optimizing hydrogen bond networks in
      protein structures
    PROTEINS, 26, 363--376 (1996).

Matthews' Coefficient
    B.W.Matthews
      Solvent content of Protein Crystals
    J. Mol. Biol. 33, 491--497 (1968).

Protein side chain planarity
    R.W.W. Hooft, C. Sander and G. Vriend,
      Verification of protein structures: side-chain planarity
    J. Appl. Cryst. 29, 714--716 (1996).

Puckering parameters
    D.Cremer and J.A.Pople,
      A general definition of ring puckering coordinates
    J. Am. Chem. Soc. 97, 1354--1358 (1975).

Quality Control
    G.Vriend and C.Sander,
      Quality control of protein models: directional atomic
      contact analysis,
    J. Appl. Cryst. 26, 47--60 (1993).

Ramachandran plot
    G.N.Ramachandran, C.Ramakrishnan and V.Sasisekharan,
      Stereochemistry of Polypeptide Chain Conformations
    J. Mol. Biol. 7, 95--99 (1963).

Symmetry Checks
    R.W.W.Hooft, C.Sander and G.Vriend,
      Reconstruction of symmetry related molecules from protein
      data bank (PDB) files
    J. Appl. Cryst. 27, 1006--1009 (1994).

Ion Checks
    I.D.Brown and K.K.Wu,
      Empirical Parameters for Calculating Cation-Oxygen Bond Valences
    Acta Cryst. B32, 1957--1959 (1975).

    M.Nayal and E.Di Cera,
      Valence Screening of Water in Protein Crystals Reveals Potential Na+
      Binding Sites
    J.Mol.Biol. 256 228--234 (1996).

    P.Mueller, S.Koepke and G.M.Sheldrick,
      Is the bond-valence method able to identify metal atoms in protein
      structures?
    Acta Cryst. D 59 32--37 (2003).

Checking checks
    K.Wilson, C.Sander, R.W.W.Hooft, G.Vriend, et al.
      Who checks the checkers
    J.Mol.Biol. (1998) 276,417-436.