pdb-l: Errors in "author determined" bio assy?
emartz at microbio.umass.edu
Sat Jun 15 14:00:58 PDT 2013
Thanks, Roland, for your authoritative observations! I certainly
agree that these common errors in REMARK 350/biological assembly (BA)
are unnecessary, and that they are burdensome since the BA is what is
shown at RSCB (a good idea in principle). I agree that any mechanism
to improve communication during deposition and avoid these misakes is
worthwhile. I especially like your proposal that authors should be
required to submit a statement explaining the basis for the BA
specified in the deposited entry -- and I think their statement
should be included in the final public entry. This would surely go a
long way towards improving the currently regrettable situation.
At 6/14/13, Dunbrack, Roland wrote:
>This is a really common problem -- authors saying one thing in their
>paper and depositing a different biological assembly in the PDB.
>Usually they just deposit the asymmetric unit as their biological
>assembly in these cases. Example 3pc2 is a dimer in the paper but a
>monomer in the asymmetric unit and the authors' biological assembly.
>I have seen cases where the title of the PDB entry says the protein
>is a tetramer but the author biological assembly is a dimer.
>I have brought this up at the RCSB's Advisory Board meetings, and we
>have had much discussion. It's my understanding that if there is an
>"author" biological assembly then the authors actually had to send a
>file at some point during the process. It cannot be that they forgot
>and the PDB put in the asymmetric unit by default. In this case (at
>least for entries in the last few years), the PDB would use the PISA
>biological assembly instead. In a few cases that I have asked
>specifically about, where the author BA is the same as the
>asymmetric unit but the paper is different, the PDB checked their
>records and they had an email exchange with the authors asking "Is
>the biological assembly the same as the asymmetric unit?" and the
>authors wrote back "yes."
>In our analysis of available annotations (author and PISA), the
>biological assembly is different from the asymmetric MORE THAN 50%
>of the time (about half of these cases, it is bigger than the
>asymmetric unit and about half the time it is smaller). The idea
>that there is any biological meaning to the asymmetric unit per se
>is unwarranted. The biological assembly is one of the very few
>pieces of information that is deposited with a structure that is not
>the direct result of the crystallographic experiment. It is the
>first image you see when you go to a PDB entry page, and it is very
>important for many purposes. It is critical to get it right and
>these kinds of mistakes are unnecessary and problematic.
>The problem is one of communication between the authors and the PDB.
>One recent improvement, which I think is operating now, is that the
>authors are now shown the PISA biological assembly choices and can
>pick from one of those (often PISA has more than one possible assembly).
>I had one idea that the PDB has not yet adopted and I would like to
>know what crystallographers think of it: I want the PDB to collect a
>statement from the authors on why they think the biological assembly
>that they deposit is the correct assembly.
>Authors often do have experimental data on the size of the assembly
>(e.g. AUC) or even better mutational data or other experiments on
>the interface(s) that are present in the biological assembly in
>solution. They may have multiple crystal forms of the protein and
>see the same assembly in more than one crystal form (we and others
>have used this as evidence in favor of the biological relevance of
>interfaces in crystals). Or they may be aware of other proteins in
>the same family that have the same assembly in their crystal
>structures in the PDB and by inference, if the same assembly is
>present in the new structure, it is also likely to be biological. In
>some cases, it may be simply hypothetical and that would be fine. It
>would be nice to know if the deposited assembly is only a guess.
>I think this annotation is especially important when no paper is
>published but even when it is, it might deter these kinds of mistakes.
>What do you think?
>Professor, Institute for Cancer Research
>Fox Chase Cancer Center
>Philadelphia PA 19111
>On 06/13/2013 10:39 PM, Eric Martz wrote:
> > It is my impression that when the "author determined" biological
> > assembly (REMARK 350) specifies the same structure as the asymmetric
> > unit, sometimes the authors simply forgot to specify a known assembly
> > during PDB deposition. Does anyone know of PDB entries where this
> has occurred?
> > Thanks, Eric
> > /* - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> > Eric Martz, Professor Emeritus, Dept Microbiology
> > U Mass, Amherst -- http://Martz.MolviZ.Org
> > Top Five 3D MolVis Technologies http://Top5.MolviZ.Org
> > FirstGlance: 3D Views in Nature Structure - http://firstglance.jmol.org
> > 3D Wiki with Scene-Authoring Tools http://Proteopedia.Org
> > Biochem 3D Education Resources http://MolviZ.org
> > ConSurf - Find Conserved Patches in Proteins: http://consurf.tau.ac.il
> > Atlas of Macromolecules: http://atlas.molviz.org
> > Interactive Molecules in Public Spaces http://MolecularPlayground.Org
> > Workshops: http://workshops.molviz.org
> > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - */
>CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email communication may contain
>private, confidential, or legally privileged information intended
>for the sole use of the designated and/or duly authorized
>recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient or have received
>this email in error, please notify the sender immediately by email
>and permanently delete all copies of this email including all
>attachments without reading them. If you are the intended recipient,
>secure the contents in a manner that conforms to all applicable
>state and/or federal requirements related to privacy and
>confidentiality of such information.
>TO UNSUBSCRIBE OR CHANGE YOUR SUBSCRIPTION OPTIONS, please see
More information about the pdb-l