Open aozalevsky opened 2 months ago
@brindakv no action needed now, but we might want to update these entries in the future.
PDBDEV_00000089 is unclear from the paper. Modeling details are in the Appendix 01 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2201910120#supplementary-materials
PDBDEV_00000098:
If a majority of structures in a cluster exhibit the inter-residue distance values within the Cα-Cα distance range the cross-linkers cover (BS3 with Cα-Cα distance <30 Å; DMTMM with Cα-Cα distance <16 Å),53
Seems like Ca-Ca (thus can be updated to by-residue
), but entry has 30 and 10A thresholds, while the text says 30 and 16.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0969212623000321?via%3Dihub
PDBDEV_0000020X series used Cb-Cb restraints:
The 136 hits from thiol trapping experiments representing pairs of receptor-arrestin positions at an estimated maximal Cβ-Cβ distance of about 10.2 Å (Fig. 2b) were translated into 136 soft harmonic restraints weighted by the corresponding crosslinking yields in an integrative modeling framework47,48,49.
Thanks @aozalevsky This can be addressed during remediation.
Here is one example (
PDBDEV_00000089
):If the
atomic
restraint is missing the atom label, such restraint can't be properly assessed. I don't consider this a problem because the default behavior is to ignore any missing/incomplete data. I've noticed it only because "at a glance" plots were failing. I've added a workaround for reports.The issue is just a note that we might want to address in the future. For instance, they can be updated to
by-residue
.Here is a full list of affected entries: PDBDEV_00000089, PDBDEV_00000098, PDBDEV_00000203, PDBDEV_00000204, PDBDEV_00000205, PDBDEV_00000206, PDBDEV_00000207, PDBDEV_00000208