WHAT IF Check report

This file was created 2011-12-15 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 pdb3e24.ent

Checks that need to be done early-on in validation

Note: Non crystallographic symmetry RMS plot

The plot shows the RMS differences between two similar chains on a residue- by-residue basis. Individual "spikes" can be indicative of interesting or wrong residues. If all residues show a high RMS value, the structure could be incorrectly refined.

Chain identifiers of the two chains: A and B

All-atom RMS fit for the two chains : 0.944
CA-only RMS fit for the two chains : 0.423

Note: Non crystallographic symmetry backbone difference plot

The plot shows the differences in backbone torsion angles between two similar chains on a residue-by-residue basis. Individual "spikes" can be indicative of interesting or wrong residues. If all residues show high differences, the structure could be incorrectly refined.

Chain identifiers of the two chains: A and B

Warning: Chain identifier inconsistency

WHAT IF believes that certain residue(s) have the wrong chain identifier. It has corrected these chain identifiers as indicated in the table. In this table the residues (ligands, drugs, lipids, ions, sugars, etc) that got their chain identifier corrected are listed with the new chain identifier that is used throughout this validation report. WHAT IF does not care about the chain identifiers of water molecules.

 370 PO4   ( 231-)  B  A
 371 PO4   ( 232-)  B  A

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.

 370 PO4   ( 231-)  B  A
 371 PO4   ( 232-)  B  A
 373 PO4   ( 233-)  A  -
 374 PO4   ( 231-)  B  -

Administrative problems that can generate validation failures

Warning: Alternate atom problems quasi solved

The residues listed in the table below have alternate atoms that WHAT IF decided to correct (e.g. take alternate atom B instead of A for one or more of the atoms). Residues for which the use of alternate atoms is non-standard, but WHAT IF left it that way because he liked the non-standard situation better than other solutions, are listed too in this table.

In case any of these residues shows up as poor or bad in checks further down this report, please check the consistency of the alternate atoms in this residue first, correct it yourself if needed, and run the validation again.

 216 ARG   (  64-)  B  -

Non-validating, descriptive output paragraph

Note: Ramachandran plot

In this Ramachandran plot x-signs represent glycines, squares represent prolines, and plus-signs represent the other residues. If too many plus- signs fall outside the contoured areas then the molecule is poorly refined (or worse). Proline can only occur in the narrow region around phi=-60 that also falls within the other contour islands.

In a colour picture, the residues that are part of a helix are shown in blue, strand residues in red. Preferred regions for helical residues are drawn in blue, for strand residues in red, and for all other residues in green. A full explanation of the Ramachandran plot together with a series of examples can be found at the WHAT_CHECK website.

Chain identifier: A

Note: Ramachandran plot

Chain identifier: B

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

Warning: Occupancies atoms do not add up to 1.0.

In principle, the occupancy of all alternates of one atom should add up till 1.0. A valid exception is the missing atom (i.e. an atom not seen in the electron density) that is allowed to have a 0.0 occupancy. Sometimes this even happens when there are no alternate atoms given...

Atoms want to move. That is the direct result of the second law of thermodynamics, in a somewhat weird way of thinking. Any way, many atoms seem to have more than one position where they like to sit, and they jump between them. The population difference between those sites (which is related to their energy differences) is seen in the occupancy factors. As also for atoms it is 'to be or not to be', these occupancies should add up to 1.0. Obviously, it is possible that they add up to a number less than 1.0, in cases where there are yet more, but undetected' rotamers/positions in play, but also in those cases a warning is in place as the information shown in the PDB file is less certain than it could have been. The residues listed below contain atoms that have an occupancy greater than zero, but all their alternates do not add up to one.

WARNING. Presently WHAT CHECK only deals with a maximum of two alternate positions. A small number of atoms in the PDB has three alternates. In those cases the warning given here should obviously be neglected! In a next release we will try to fix this.

 216 ARG   (  64-)  B    0.80

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. The header of the PDB file states that TLS groups were used. So, if WHAT IF complains about your B-factors, while 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:


Number of TLS groups mentione in PDB file header: 2

Crystal temperature (K) :100.000

Note: B-factor plot

The average atomic B-factor per residue is plotted as function of the residue number.

Chain identifier: A

Note: B-factor plot

Chain identifier: B

Nomenclature related problems

Warning: Tyrosine convention problem

The tyrosine residues listed in the table below have their chi-2 not between -90.0 and 90.0

   3 TYR   (  37-)  A
 189 TYR   (  37-)  B

Warning: Phenylalanine convention problem

The phenylalanine residues listed in the table below have their chi-2 not between -90.0 and 90.0.

   5 PHE   (  39-)  A
  41 PHE   (  75-)  A
 191 PHE   (  39-)  B
 227 PHE   (  75-)  B
 339 PHE   ( 187-)  B

Warning: Aspartic acid convention problem

The aspartic acid residues listed in the table below have their chi-2 not between -90.0 and 90.0, or their proton on OD1 instead of OD2.

  76 ASP   ( 110-)  A
  78 ASP   ( 112-)  A
 110 ASP   ( 144-)  A
 156 ASP   ( 190-)  A
 262 ASP   ( 110-)  B
 264 ASP   ( 112-)  B
 296 ASP   ( 144-)  B
 342 ASP   ( 190-)  B
 368 ASP   ( 216-)  B

Warning: Glutamic acid convention problem

The glutamic acid residues listed in the table below have their chi-3 outside the -90.0 to 90.0 range, or their proton on OE1 instead of OE2.

  57 GLU   (  91-)  A
 135 GLU   ( 169-)  A
 165 GLU   ( 199-)  A
 183 GLU   ( 217-)  A
 184 GLU   ( 218-)  A
 243 GLU   (  91-)  B

Geometric checks

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

 |  0.997454 -0.000524 -0.000394|
 | -0.000524  0.997213 -0.000616|
 | -0.000394 -0.000616  0.998102|
Proposed new scale matrix

 |  0.020812  0.000011  0.000008|
 |  0.000004  0.007736  0.000005|
 |  0.000003  0.000004  0.006954|
With corresponding cell

    A    =  48.049  B   = 129.273  C    = 143.798
    Alpha=  90.071  Beta=  90.045  Gamma=  90.060

The CRYST1 cell dimensions

    A    =  48.173  B   = 129.627  C    = 144.081
    Alpha=  90.000  Beta=  90.000  Gamma=  90.000

Variance: 75.885
(Under-)estimated Z-score: 6.420

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.

  10 ASP   (  44-)  A      C    CA   CB   99.55   -5.6

Error: Nomenclature error(s)

Checking for a hand-check. WHAT IF has over the course of this session already corrected the handedness of atoms in several residues. These were administrative corrections. These residues are listed here.

  57 GLU   (  91-)  A
  76 ASP   ( 110-)  A
  78 ASP   ( 112-)  A
 110 ASP   ( 144-)  A
 135 GLU   ( 169-)  A
 156 ASP   ( 190-)  A
 165 GLU   ( 199-)  A
 183 GLU   ( 217-)  A
 184 GLU   ( 218-)  A
 243 GLU   (  91-)  B
 262 ASP   ( 110-)  B
 264 ASP   ( 112-)  B
 296 ASP   ( 144-)  B
 342 ASP   ( 190-)  B
 368 ASP   ( 216-)  B

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.

 341 VAL   ( 189-)  B    -2.3
 339 PHE   ( 187-)  B    -2.3
 198 ARG   (  46-)  B    -2.2
 220 ASN   (  68-)  B    -2.2
 338 GLY   ( 186-)  B    -2.2
  82 ILE   ( 116-)  A    -2.2
 225 THR   (  73-)  B    -2.1
 268 ILE   ( 116-)  B    -2.1
  34 ASN   (  68-)  A    -2.0
 183 GLU   ( 217-)  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.

  20 ASN   (  54-)  A  Poor phi/psi
  33 ALA   (  67-)  A  Poor phi/psi
  35 GLN   (  69-)  A  omega poor
  66 ASN   ( 100-)  A  Poor phi/psi
 152 GLY   ( 186-)  A  Poor phi/psi
 157 GLN   ( 191-)  A  Poor phi/psi
 182 ASP   ( 216-)  A  Poor phi/psi
 184 GLU   ( 218-)  A  omega poor
 185 ASN   ( 219-)  A  omega poor
 189 TYR   (  37-)  B  omega poor
 212 LEU   (  60-)  B  omega poor
 219 ALA   (  67-)  B  Poor phi/psi
 221 GLN   (  69-)  B  omega poor
 241 LYS   (  89-)  B  Poor phi/psi
 246 ILE   (  94-)  B  omega poor
 288 LYS   ( 136-)  B  Poor phi/psi
 331 TRP   ( 179-)  B  omega poor
 335 VAL   ( 183-)  B  omega poor
 342 ASP   ( 190-)  B  omega poor
 343 GLN   ( 191-)  B  Poor phi/psi
 chi-1/chi-2 correlation Z-score : -2.263

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!

  10 ASP   (  44-)  A      0
  12 ARG   (  46-)  A      0
  20 ASN   (  54-)  A      0
  23 PRO   (  57-)  A      0
  25 GLU   (  59-)  A      0
  31 ASN   (  65-)  A      0
  32 VAL   (  66-)  A      0
  33 ALA   (  67-)  A      0
  35 GLN   (  69-)  A      0
  39 THR   (  73-)  A      0
  52 ASP   (  86-)  A      0
  57 GLU   (  91-)  A      0
  65 THR   (  99-)  A      0
  67 CYS   ( 101-)  A      0
  75 ALA   ( 109-)  A      0
  76 ASP   ( 110-)  A      0
  78 ASP   ( 112-)  A      0
  81 LEU   ( 115-)  A      0
 139 LYS   ( 173-)  A      0
 157 GLN   ( 191-)  A      0
 159 VAL   ( 193-)  A      0
 162 THR   ( 196-)  A      0
 182 ASP   ( 216-)  A      0
 183 GLU   ( 217-)  A      0
 184 GLU   ( 218-)  A      0
And so on for a total of 116 lines.

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].

   1 PRO   (  35-)  A    28.4 envelop C-delta (36 degrees)
 187 PRO   (  35-)  B   -63.5 envelop C-beta (-72 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.

  11 SER   (  45-)  A      O   <->   30 ARG   (  64-)  A    A NH2    0.48    2.22  INTRA BF
 342 ASP   ( 190-)  B      O   <->  344 GLY   ( 192-)  B      N      0.36    2.34  INTRA BF
 157 GLN   ( 191-)  A      OE1 <->  375 HOH   ( 265 )  A      O      0.36    2.04  INTRA BF
 188 HIS   (  36-)  B      ND1 <->  211 GLU   (  59-)  B      OE1    0.33    2.37  INTRA BF
 104 SER   ( 138-)  A      N   <->  184 GLU   ( 218-)  A      O      0.29    2.41  INTRA BF
  57 GLU   (  91-)  A      OE1 <->  139 LYS   ( 173-)  A      NZ     0.28    2.42  INTRA BF
 343 GLN   ( 191-)  B      O   <->  345 VAL   ( 193-)  B      N      0.27    2.43  INTRA BF
 345 VAL   ( 193-)  B      CG1 <->  376 HOH   ( 276 )  B      O      0.27    2.53  INTRA BF
  10 ASP   (  44-)  A      O   <->   12 ARG   (  46-)  A      NE     0.27    2.43  INTRA BF
  10 ASP   (  44-)  A      CB  <->  369  ZN   ( 230-)  A     ZN      0.26    2.94  INTRA BF
 131 LYS   ( 165-)  A      NZ  <->  373 PO4   ( 233-)  A      O2     0.22    2.48  INTRA BF
 330 GLY   ( 178-)  B      O   <->  343 GLN   ( 191-)  B      N      0.19    2.51  INTRA BF
  52 ASP   (  86-)  A      O   <->   55 LYS   (  89-)  A      NZ     0.18    2.52  INTRA BF
 282 HIS   ( 130-)  B      NE2 <->  305 GLU   ( 153-)  B      OE2    0.17    2.53  INTRA BL
 343 GLN   ( 191-)  B      C   <->  345 VAL   ( 193-)  B      N      0.17    2.73  INTRA BF
 263 LYS   ( 111-)  B      O   <->  269 ASN   ( 117-)  B      ND2    0.17    2.53  INTRA BL
 122 TYR   ( 156-)  A      OH  <->  168 GLU   ( 202-)  A      OE2    0.16    2.24  INTRA BF
 156 ASP   ( 190-)  A      O   <->  158 GLY   ( 192-)  A      N      0.13    2.57  INTRA BF
  38 HIS   (  72-)  A      ND1 <->  375 HOH   ( 234 )  A      O      0.13    2.57  INTRA BL
 131 LYS   ( 165-)  A      NZ  <->  373 PO4   ( 233-)  A      P      0.12    3.18  INTRA BF
 276 ARG   ( 124-)  B      NE  <->  373 PO4   ( 233-)  A      O4     0.11    2.59  INTRA BF
 370 PO4   ( 231-)  B      O2  <->  375 HOH   ( 285 )  A      O      0.11    2.29  INTRA BF
 215 HIS   (  63-)  B      NE2 <->  217 ASN   (  65-)  B      ND2    0.10    2.90  INTRA BL
 340 LEU   ( 188-)  B      C   <->  341 VAL   ( 189-)  B      CG2    0.10    3.00  INTRA BF
 322 ARG   ( 170-)  B      NH2 <->  376 HOH   ( 271 )  B      O      0.09    2.61  INTRA BF
And so on for a total of 53 lines.

Packing, accessibility and threading

Note: Inside/Outside RMS Z-score plot

The Inside/Outside distribution normality RMS Z-score over a 15 residue window is plotted as function of the residue number. High areas in the plot (above 1.5) indicate unusual inside/outside patterns.

Chain identifier: A

Note: Inside/Outside RMS Z-score plot

Chain identifier: B

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.

  12 ARG   (  46-)  A      -7.32
 198 ARG   (  46-)  B      -6.28
 216 ARG   (  64-)  B      -6.16
  30 ARG   (  64-)  A      -5.81
 322 ARG   ( 170-)  B      -5.29
 252 ASN   ( 100-)  B      -5.17
 157 GLN   ( 191-)  A      -5.15

Note: Quality value plot

The quality value smoothed over a 10 residue window is plotted as function of the residue number. Low areas in the plot (below -2.0) indicate unusual packing.

Chain identifier: A

Note: Quality value plot

The quality value smoothed over a 10 residue window is plotted as function of the residue number. Low areas in the plot (below -2.0) indicate unusual packing.

Chain identifier: B

Warning: Low packing Z-score for some residues

The residues listed in the table below have an unusual packing environment according to the 2nd generation packing check. The score listed in the table is a packing normality Z-score: positive means better than average, negative means worse than average. Only residues scoring less than -2.50 are listed here. These are the unusual residues in the structure, so it will be interesting to take a special look at them.

 138 GLN   ( 172-)  A   -2.51

Note: Second generation quality Z-score plot

The second generation quality Z-score smoothed over a 10 residue window is plotted as function of the residue number. Low areas in the plot (below -1.3) indicate unusual packing.

Chain identifier: A

Note: Second generation quality Z-score plot

Chain identifier: B

Water, ion, and hydrogenbond related checks

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.

 376 HOH   ( 258 )  B      O
Metal-coordinating Histidine residue  64 fixed to   1
Metal-coordinating Histidine residue 250 fixed to   1

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.

 329 HIS   ( 177-)  B

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.

  13 VAL   (  47-)  A      N
  26 LEU   (  60-)  A      N
  43 CYS   (  77-)  A      N
  58 HIS   (  92-)  A      N
  65 THR   (  99-)  A      OG1
  90 ARG   ( 124-)  A      NE
 126 ARG   ( 160-)  A      NE
 159 VAL   ( 193-)  A      N
 183 GLU   ( 217-)  A      N
 184 GLU   ( 218-)  A      N
 186 ILE   ( 220-)  A      N
 198 ARG   (  46-)  B      NH2
 201 ALA   (  49-)  B      N
 221 GLN   (  69-)  B      NE2
 225 THR   (  73-)  B      N
 244 HIS   (  92-)  B      N
 263 LYS   ( 111-)  B      N
 276 ARG   ( 124-)  B      NH1
 312 ARG   ( 160-)  B      NE
 331 TRP   ( 179-)  B      NE1
 345 VAL   ( 193-)  B      N
 359 ASN   ( 207-)  B      ND2
Only metal coordination for   64 HIS  (  98-) A      NE2
Only metal coordination for  250 HIS  (  98-) B      NE2

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.

 342 ASP   ( 190-)  B      OD1
 343 GLN   ( 191-)  B      OE1

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.

 342 ASP   ( 190-)  B   H-bonding suggests Asn; but Alt-Rotamer

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 :   0.130
  2nd generation packing quality :  -1.004
  Ramachandran plot appearance   :  -0.249
  chi-1/chi-2 rotamer normality  :  -2.263
  Backbone conformation          :   0.137

RMS Z-scores, should be close to 1.0:
  Bond lengths                   :   0.471 (tight)
  Bond angles                    :   0.676
  Omega angle restraints         :   1.126
  Side chain planarity           :   0.541 (tight)
  Improper dihedral distribution :   0.586
  B-factor distribution          :   0.350
  Inside/Outside distribution    :   1.045

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 : 2.30


Structure Z-scores, positive is better than average:

  1st generation packing quality :   0.9
  2nd generation packing quality :  -0.2
  Ramachandran plot appearance   :   1.0
  chi-1/chi-2 rotamer normality  :  -0.8
  Backbone conformation          :   0.2

RMS Z-scores, should be close to 1.0:
  Bond lengths                   :   0.471 (tight)
  Bond angles                    :   0.676
  Omega angle restraints         :   1.126
  Side chain planarity           :   0.541 (tight)
  Improper dihedral distribution :   0.586
  B-factor distribution          :   0.350
  Inside/Outside distribution    :   1.045
==============

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.