Response to Comment on Three X-ray Crystal Structure Papers

Twilight reloaded: the peptide experience

The de facto commoditization of biomolecular crystallography as a result of almost disruptive instrumentation automation and continuing improvement of software allows any sensibly trained structural biologist to conduct crystallographic studies of biomolecules with reasonably valid outcomes: that is, models based on properly interpreted electron density. Robust validation has led to major mistakes in the protein part of structure models becoming rare, but some depositions of protein-peptide complex structure models, which generally carry significant interest to the scientific community, still contain erroneous models of the bound peptide ligand. Here, the protein small-molecule ligand validation tool Twilight is updated to include peptide ligands. (i) The primary technical reasons and potential human factors leading to problems in ligand structure models are presented; (ii) a new method used to score peptide-ligand models is presented; (iii) a few instructive and specific examples, including an electron-density-based analysis of peptide-ligand structures that do not contain any ligands, are discussed in detail; (iv) means to avoid such mistakes and the implications for database integrity are discussed and (v) some suggestions as to how journal editors could help to expunge errors from the Protein Data Bank are provided.

Correcting the record of structural publications requires joint effort of the community and journal editors

Seriously flawed and even fictional models of biomolecular crystal structures, although rare, still persist in the record of structural repositories and databases. The ensuing problems of database contamination and persistence of publications based on incorrect structure models must be effectively addressed. The burden cannot be simply left to the critical voices who take the effort to contribute dissenting comments that are mostly ignored. The entire structural biology community, and particularly the journal editors who exercise significant power in this respect, must engage in a constructive dialog lest structural biology lose its credibility as an evidence-based empirical science.