4.7 Article

Recommendations of the wwPDB NMR Validation Task Force

Journal

STRUCTURE
Volume 21, Issue 9, Pages 1563-1570

Publisher

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.str.2013.07.021

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Pasteur Institute and NIGMS Protein Structure Initiative grant [U54 GM094597]
  2. NIH Intramural Research Program of the NIDDK
  3. NIH Intramural Research Program of the CIT
  4. BBSRC grants [BB/J007471/1, BB/J007897/1]
  5. NIH [R01-GM073930]
  6. Brussels Institute for Research and Innovation (Innoviris) grant [BB2B 2010-1-12]
  7. BBSRC [BB/J007471/1, BB/K021249/1, BB/J007897/1, BB/E007511/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  8. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/J007471/1, BB/J007897/1, BB/E007511/1, BB/K021249/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  9. Div Of Biological Infrastructure
  10. Direct For Biological Sciences [0829586] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  11. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [25440032] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

As methods for analysis of biomolecular structure and dynamics using nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy (NMR) continue to advance, the resulting 3D structures, chemical shifts, and other NMR data are broadly impacting biology, chemistry, and medicine. Structure model assessment is a critical area of NMR methods development, and is an essential component of the process of making these structures accessible and useful to the wider scientific community. For these reasons, the Worldwide Protein Data Bank (wwPDB) has convened an NMR Validation Task Force (NMR-VTF) to work with wwPDB partners in developing metrics and policies for biomolecular NMR data harvesting, structure representation, and structure quality assessment. This paper summarizes the recommendations of the NMR-VTF, and lays the groundwork for future work in developing standards and metrics for biomolecular NMR structure quality assessment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available