1. Understanding the PDB-Dev Validation Report

This validation report was created based on the guidelines and recommendations from IHM TaskForce (Berman et al. 2019). The first version of the PDB-Dev validation report consists of four categories as follows:

1.1 Model composition : This section outlines model details and includes information on ensembles deposited, chains and residues of domains, model representation, software, protocol, and methods used. All deposited structures have this section.

1.2. Data quality assessment : Data quality assessments are only available for Small Angle Scattering datasets (SAS). This section was developed in collaboration with the SASBDB community. For details on the metrics, guidelines, and recommendations used, refer the 2017 community article (Trewhella et al. 2017). All experimental datasets used to build the model are listed, however, validation criteria for other experimental datasets are currently under development.

1.3. Model quality assessment : Model quality for models at atomic resolution is assessed using Molprobity (Williams et al. 2018), consistent with PDB. Model quality for coarse-grained or multi-resolution structures are assessed by computing excluded volume satisfaction based on reported distances and sizes of beads in the structures.

1.4. Fit to data used to build the model : Fit to data used to build the model is only available for SAS datasets. This section was developed in collaboration with the SASBDB (Valentini et al. 2015). For details on the metrics, guidelines, and recommendations used, refer the 2017 community article (Trewhella et al. 2017). All experimental datasets used to build the model are listed, however, validation criteria for other experimental datasets are currently under development.

A fifth category, fit to data used to validate the model, is under development.

2. Overview

2.1 Overall Quality Assessment : This is a set of plots that represent a snapshot view of the validation results. There are four tabs, one for each validation criterion: (i) model quality, (ii) data quality, (iii) fit to data used for modeling, and (iv) fit to data used for validation.

  • 2.1.1. Model quality : For atomic structures, MolProbity is used for evaluation. We evaluate bond outliers, side chain outliers, clash score, rotamer satisfaction, and ramachandran dihedral satisfaction (Williams et al. 2018) . Details on MolProbity evaluation and tables can be found here. For coarse-grained structures of beads, we evaluate excluded volume satisfaction. An excluded volume violation or overlap between two beads occurs if the distance between the two beads is less than the sum of their radii (S. J. Kim et al. 2018). Excluded volume satisfaction is the percentage of pair distances in a structure that are not violated (higher values are better).

  • 2.1.2. Data quality : Data quality assessments are only available for SAS datasets. The current plot displays radius of gyration (Rg) for each dataset used to build the model. Rg is obtained from both a P(r) analysis (see more here), and a Guinier analysis (see more here).

  • 2.1.3. Fit to data used for modeling : Fit to data used for modeling assessments are available for SAS datasets. The current plot displays Χ² Goodness of Fit Assessment for SAS-model fits (see more here).

  • 2.1.4. Fit to data used for validation : Fit to data used for validation is currently under development.

3. Model Details

3.1. Ensemble Information : Number of ensembles deposited, where each ensemble consists of two or more structures.

3.2. Summary : Summary of the structure, including number of models deposited, datasets used to build the models and information on model representation.

3.3. Entry Composition : Number of chains present in the integrative structure.

3.4. Datasets Used : Number and type of experimental datasets used to build the model.

3.5. Representation : Number and details on rigid and non-rigid elements of the structure.

3.6. Methods and Software : Methods, protocols, and softwares used to build the integrative structure.

4. Data Quality

4.1. SAS: Scattering Profiles : Data from solutions of biological macromolecules are presented as both log I(q) vs q and log I(q) vs log (q) based on SAS validation task force (SASvtf) recommendations (Trewhella et al. 2017). I(q) is the intensity (in arbitrary units) and q is the modulus of the scattering vector.

4.2. SAS: Experimental Estimates : Molecular weight (MW) and volume data are displayed. True MW can be compared to Porod estimate from scattering profiles, estimated volume can be compared to Porod volume obtained from scattering profiles (Trewhella et al. 2017).

4.3. SAS: Flexibility Analysis : Flexibility of chains are assessed by inferring Porod-Debye and Kratky plots. In a Porod-Debye plot, a clear plateau is observed for globular (partial or fully folded) domains, whereas fully unfolded domains are devoid of any discernible plateau. For details, refer to Figure 5 in Rambo and Tainer, 2011 (Rambo and Tainer 2011). In a Kratky plot, a parabolic shape is observed for globular (partial or fully folded) domains and a hyperbolic shape is observed for fully unfolded domains.

4.4. SAS: P(r) Analysis : P(r) represents the distribution of distances between all pairs of atoms within the particle weighted by the respective electron densities (Moore 1980) . P(r) is the Fourier transform of I(s) (and vice versa). Rg can be estimated from integrating the P(r) function. Agreement between the P(r) and Guinier-determined Rg (table below) is a good measure of the self-consistency of the SAS profile. Rg is a measure for the overall size of a macromolecule; e.g. a protein with a smaller Rg is more compact than a protein with a larger Rg, provided both have the same molecular weight (Mw). The point where P(r) is decaying to zero is called Dmax and represents the maximum size of the particle. The value of P(r) should be zero beyond r=Dmax.

4.5. SAS: Guinier Analysis : Agreement between the P(r) and Guinier-determined Rg (table below) is a good measure of the self-consistency of the SAS profile. The linearity of the Guinier plot is a sensitive indicator of the quality of the experimental SAS data; a linear Guinier plot is a necessary but not sufficient demonstration that a solution contains monodisperse particles of the same size. Deviations from linearity usually point to strong interference effects, polydispersity of the samples or improper background subtraction (Feigin and Svergun 1987). Residual value plot and coefficient of determination (R2) are measures to assess linear fit to the data. A perfect fit has an R2 value of 1. Residual values should be equally and randomly spaced around the horizontal axis.

5. Model Quality Assessment

Excluded volume assessments are performed for coarse-grained structures and MolProbity analysis is performed for atomic structures.

5.1a. Excluded Volume Analysis : Excluded volume violation is defined as percentage of overlaps between coarse-grained beads in a structure. This percentage is obtained by dividing the number of overlaps/violations by the total number of pair distances in a structure. An overlap or violation between two beads occurs if the distance between the two beads is less than the sum of their radii (S. J. Kim et al. 2018).

5.1b. Molprobity Analysis : Molprobity analysis for atomic structures reported is consistent with PDB standards for X-ray structures (Williams et al. 2018). Summarized information is available in both the HTML and PDF reports. Detailed information is available for download as csv files, both from the HTML and the PDF reports. Please refer to the PDB user guide for details.

6. Fit to Data Used for Modeling Assessment

Recommendations from SAS validation task force (SASvtf) for model fit assessment include:

  1. All software, including version numbers, used for modelling; three-dimensional shape, bead or atomistic modelling.

  2. All modelling assumptions clearly stated, including adjustable parameter values. In the case of imposed symmetry, especially in the case of shape models, comparison with results obtained in the absence of symmetry restraints.

  3. For atomistic modelling, a description of how the starting models were obtained (e.g. crystal or NMR structure of a domain, homology model etc.), connectivity or distance restraints used and flexible regions specified and the basis for their selection.

  4. Any additional experimental or bioinformatics-based evidence supporting modelling assumptions and therefore enabling modelling restraints or independent model validation.

  5. For three-dimensional models, values for adjustable parameters, constant adjustments to intensity, χ² and associated p-values and a clear representation of the model fit to the experimental I(q) versus q including a residual plot that clearly identifies systematic deviations.

  6. Analysis of the ambiguity and precision of models, e.g. based on cluster analysis of results from multiple independent optimizations of the model against the SAS profile or profiles, with examples of any distinct clusters in addition to any final averaged model.

6.1. SAS: Χ² Goodness of Fit Assessment : Model and fits displayed below were obtained from SASBDB. χ² values are a measure of fit of the model to data. A perfect fit has a χ² value of zero. (Trewhella et al. 2013,Schneidman-Duhovny, Kim, and Sali 2012, and Rambo and Tainer 2013)

6.2. SAS: Cormap Analysis : ATSAS datcmp (Manalastas-Cantos et al. 2021) was used for hypothesis testing, using the null hypothesis that all data sets (i.e. the fit and the data collected) are similar. The reported p-value is a measure of evidence against the null hypothesis; the smaller the value, the stronger the evidence that the null hypothesis should be rejected.

7. Fit to Data Used for Validation Assessment

This includes assessing model fit to data that was not used explicitly or implicitly in modeling. This section is currently under development.

8. Understanding the Summary Table

8.1. Entry composition : List of unique molecules that are present in the entry

8.2. Datasets used for modeling : List of input experimental datasets used for modeling.

8.3. Representation : Representation of modeled structure.

  • 8.3.1. Atomic structural coverage : Percentage of modeled structure or residues for which atomic structures are available. These structures can include X-ray, NMR, EM, and other comparative models.

  • 8.3.2. Rigid bodies : A rigid body consists of multiple coarse-grained (CG) beads or atomic residues. In a rigid body, the beads (or residues) have their relative distances constrained during conformational sampling.

  • 8.3.3. Flexible units : Flexible units consist of strings of beads that are restrained by the sequence connectivity.

  • 8.3.4. Interface units : An automatic definition based on identified interface for each model. Applicable to models built with HADDOCK.

  • 8.3.5. Resolution : An automatic definition based on identified interface for each model. Applicable to models built with HADDOCK.

8.4. Restraints : A set of restraints used to compute modeled structure.

8.5. Validation : Assessment of models based on validation criteria set by IHM task force (Sali et al. 2021 and Berman et al. 2019)

8.6. Methodology and software : List of methods on which modeled structures are based and software used to obtain structures.

9. References for Validation Report

  1. Berman, Helen M., Paul D. Adams, Alexandre A. Bonvin, Stephen K. Burley, Bridget Carragher, Wah Chiu, Frank DiMaio, et al. 2019. “Federating Structural Models and Data: Outcomes from A Workshop on Archiving Integrative Structures.” Structure 27 (12): 1745–59.

  2. Manalastas-Cantos, Karen, Petr V. Konarev, Nelly R. Hajizadeh, Alexey G. Kikhney, Maxim V. Petoukhov, Dmitry S. Molodenskiy, Alejandro Panjkovich, et al. 2021. “ATSAS 3.0: Expanded Functionality and New Tools for Small-Angle Scattering Data Analysis.” Journal of Applied Crystallography 54 (Pt 1): 343–55.

  3. Rambo, Robert P., and John A. Tainer. 2011. “Characterizing Flexible and Intrinsically Unstructured Biological Macromolecules by SAS Using the Porod-Debye Law.” Biopolymers 95 (8): 559–71.

  4. Sali, Andrej, Helen M. Berman, Torsten Schwede, Jill Trewhella, Gerard Kleywegt, Stephen K. Burley, John Markley, et al. 2015. “Outcome of the First wwPDB Hybrid/Integrative Methods Task Force Workshop.” Structure 23 (7): 1156–67.

  5. Trewhella, Jill, Anthony P. Duff, Dominique Durand, Frank Gabel, J. Mitchell Guss, Wayne A. Hendrickson, Greg L. Hura, et al. 2017. “2017 Publication Guidelines for Structural Modelling of Small-Angle Scattering Data from Biomolecules in Solution: An Update.” Acta Crystallographica. Section D, Structural Biology 73 (Pt 9): 710–28

  6. Valentini, Erica, Alexey G. Kikhney, Gianpietro Previtali, Cy M. Jeffries, and Dmitri I. Svergun. 2015. “SASBDB, a Repository for Biological Small-Angle Scattering Data.” Nucleic Acids Research 43 (Database issue): D357–63.

  7. Viswanath, Shruthi, Ilan E. Chemmama, Peter Cimermancic, and Andrej Sali. 2017. “Assessing Exhaustiveness of Stochastic Sampling for Integrative Modeling of Macromolecular Structures.” Biophysical Journal 113 (11): 2344–53.

  8. Williams, Christopher J., Jeffrey J. Headd, Nigel W. Moriarty, Michael G. Prisant, Lizbeth L. Videau, Lindsay N. Deis, Vishal Verma, et al. 2018. “MolProbity: More and Better Reference Data for Improved All-Atom Structure Validation.” Protein Science: A Publication of the Protein Society 27 (1): 293–315.

10. References for Modeling Software

  1. Ahmed, Aqeel, Friedrich Rippmann, Gerhard Barnickel, and Holger Gohlke. 2011. “A Normal Mode-Based Geometric Simulation Approach for Exploring Biologically Relevant Conformational Transitions in Proteins.” Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling 51 (7): 1604–22.

  2. Berjanskii, Mark, Yongjie Liang, Jianjun Zhou, Peter Tang, Paul Stothard, You Zhou, Joseph Cruz, et al. 2010. “PROSESS: A Protein Structure Evaluation Suite and Server.” Nucleic Acids Research 38 (Web Server issue): W633–40.

  3. Brannetti, B., A. Zanzoni, L. Montecchi-Palazzi, G. Cesareni, and M. Helmer-Citterich. 2001. “iSPOT: A Web Tool for the Analysis and Recognition of Protein Domain Specificity.” Comparative and Functional Genomics 2 (5): 314–18.

  4. Brunger, Axel T. 2007. “Version 1.2 of the Crystallography and NMR System.” Nature Protocols 2 (11): 2728–33.

  5. Bryson, Kevin, Liam J. McGuffin, Russell L. Marsden, Jonathan J. Ward, Jaspreet S. Sodhi, and David T. Jones. 2005. “Protein Structure Prediction Servers at University College London.” Nucleic Acids Research 33 (Web Server issue): W36–38.

  6. Buchan, Daniel W. A., and David T. Jones. 2019. “The PSIPRED Protein Analysis Workbench: 20 Years on.” Nucleic Acids Research 47 (W1): W402–7.

  7. Chaudhury, Sidhartha, Sergey Lyskov, and Jeffrey J. Gray. 2010. “PyRosetta: A Script-Based Interface for Implementing Molecular Modeling Algorithms Using Rosetta.” Bioinformatics 26 (5): 689–91.

  8. Cherry, J. Michael, Eurie L. Hong, Craig Amundsen, Rama Balakrishnan, Gail Binkley, Esther T. Chan, Karen R. Christie, et al. 2012. “Saccharomyces Genome Database: The Genomics Resource of Budding Yeast.” Nucleic Acids Research 40 (Database issue): D700–705.

  9. Dimura, Mykola, Thomas-Otavio Peulen, Hugo Sanabria, Dmitro Rodnin, Katherina Hemmen, Christian A. Hanke, Claus A. M. Seidel, and Holger Gohlke. 2020. “Automated and Optimally FRET-Assisted Structural Modeling.” Nature Communications 11 (1): 5394.

  10. Ding, Feng, Douglas Tsao, Huifen Nie, and Nikolay V. Dokholyan. 2008. “Ab Initio Folding of Proteins with All-Atom Discrete Molecular Dynamics.” Structure 16 (7): 1010–18.

  11. Dominguez, C., R. Boelens, and A. M. Bonvin. 2003. “HADDOCK: A Protein-Protein Docking Approach Based on Biochemical or Biophysical Information.” Journal of the American Chemical Society 125 (7): 1731–37.

  12. Feigin, L. A., and D. I. Svergun. 1987. Structure Analysis by Small-Angle X-Ray and Neutron Scattering. Edited by George W. Taylor. Springer, Boston, MA.

  13. Finn, Robert D., Jody Clements, and Sean R. Eddy. 2011. “HMMER Web Server: Interactive Sequence Similarity Searching.” Nucleic Acids Research 39 (Web Server issue): W29–37.

  14. Gautier, Romain, Dominique Douguet, Bruno Antonny, and Guillaume Drin. 2008. “HELIQUEST: A Web Server to Screen Sequences with Specific Alpha-Helical Properties.” Bioinformatics 24 (18): 2101–2.

  15. Hummer, Gerhard, and Jürgen Köfinger. 2015. “Bayesian Ensemble Refinement by Replica Simulations and Reweighting.” The Journal of Chemical Physics 143 (24): 243150.

  16. Jones, David T., and Domenico Cozzetto. 2015. “DISOPRED3: Precise Disordered Region Predictions with Annotated Protein-Binding Activity.” Bioinformatics 31 (6): 857–63.

  17. Källberg, Morten, Gohar Margaryan, Sheng Wang, Jianzhu Ma, and Jinbo Xu. 2014. “RaptorX Server: A Resource for Template-Based Protein Structure Modeling.” Methods in Molecular Biology 1137: 17–27.

  18. Kelley, Lawrence A., Stefans Mezulis, Christopher M. Yates, Mark N. Wass, and Michael J. E. Sternberg. 2015. “The Phyre2 Web Portal for Protein Modeling, Prediction and Analysis.” Nature Protocols 10 (6): 845–58.

  19. Kim, David E., Dylan Chivian, and David Baker. 2004. “Protein Structure Prediction and Analysis Using the Robetta Server.” Nucleic Acids Research 32 (Web Server issue): W526–31.

  20. Kim, Seung Joong, Javier Fernandez-Martinez, Ilona Nudelman, Yi Shi, Wenzhu Zhang, Barak Raveh, Thurston Herricks, et al. 2018. “Integrative Structure and Functional Anatomy of a Nuclear Pore Complex.” Nature 555 (7697): 475–82.

  21. Li, Yunqi, and Yang Zhang. 2009. “REMO: A New Protocol to Refine Full Atomic Protein Models from C-Alpha Traces by Optimizing Hydrogen-Bonding Networks.” Proteins 76 (3): 665–76.

  22. Ludtke, S. J. 2016. “Single-Particle Refinement and Variability Analysis in EMAN2.1.” Methods in Enzymology 579 (July): 159–89.

  23. Lupas, A., M. Van Dyke, and J. Stock. 1991. “Predicting Coiled Coils from Protein Sequences.” Science 252 (5009): 1162–64.

  24. Manalastas-Cantos, Karen, Petr V. Konarev, Nelly R. Hajizadeh, Alexey G. Kikhney, Maxim V. Petoukhov, Dmitry S. Molodenskiy, Alejandro Panjkovich, et al. 2021. “ATSAS 3.0: Expanded Functionality and New Tools for Small-Angle Scattering Data Analysis.” Journal of Applied Crystallography 54 (Pt 1): 343–55.

  25. Matthew Allen Bullock, Joshua, Jannik Schwab, Konstantinos Thalassinos, and Maya Topf. 2016. “The Importance of Non-Accessible Crosslinks and Solvent Accessible Surface Distance in Modeling Proteins with Restraints From Crosslinking Mass Spectrometry.” Molecular & Cellular Proteomics: MCP 15 (7): 2491–2500.

  26. Moore, P. B. 1980. “Small-Angle Scattering. Information Content and Error Analysis.” Journal of Applied Crystallography 13 (2): 168–75.

  27. Ovchinnikov, Sergey, Hetunandan Kamisetty, and David Baker. 2014. “Robust and Accurate Prediction of Residue-Residue Interactions across Protein Interfaces Using Evolutionary Information.” eLife 3 (May): e02030.

  28. Pettersen, Eric F., Thomas D. Goddard, Conrad C. Huang, Gregory S. Couch, Daniel M. Greenblatt, Elaine C. Meng, and Thomas E. Ferrin. 2004. “UCSF Chimera--a Visualization System for Exploratory Research and Analysis.” Journal of Computational Chemistry 25 (13): 1605–12.

  29. Pires, Douglas E. V., David B. Ascher, and Tom L. Blundell. 2014. “mCSM: Predicting the Effects of Mutations in Proteins Using Graph-Based Signatures.” Bioinformatics 30 (3): 335–42.

  30. Pronk, Sander, Szilárd Páll, Roland Schulz, Per Larsson, Pär Bjelkmar, Rossen Apostolov, Michael R. Shirts, et al. 2013. “GROMACS 4.5: A High-Throughput and Highly Parallel Open Source Molecular Simulation Toolkit.” Bioinformatics 29 (7): 845–54.

  31. Rambo, Robert P., and John A. Tainer. 2013. “Super-Resolution in Solution X-Ray Scattering and Its Applications to Structural Systems Biology.” Annual Review of Biophysics 42 (March): 415–41.

  32. Rohl, Carol A., Charlie E. M. Strauss, Kira M. S. Misura, and David Baker. 2004. “Protein Structure Prediction Using Rosetta.” Methods in Enzymology 383: 66–93.

  33. Russel, Daniel, Keren Lasker, Ben Webb, Javier Velázquez-Muriel, Elina Tjioe, Dina Schneidman-Duhovny, Bret Peterson, and Andrej Sali. 2012. “Putting the Pieces Together: Integrative Modeling Platform Software for Structure Determination of Macromolecular Assemblies.” PLoS Biology 10 (1): e1001244.

  34. Scheres, Sjors H. W. 2012. “RELION: Implementation of a Bayesian Approach to Cryo-EM Structure Determination.” Journal of Structural Biology 180 (3): 519–30.

  35. Schneider, Michael, and Oliver Brock. 2014. “Combining Physicochemical and Evolutionary Information for Protein Contact Prediction.” PloS One 9 (10): e108438.

  36. Schneidman, D., M. Hammel, J. Tainer, and A. Sali. 2016. “FoXS, FoXSDock, and MultiFoXS: Single-State and Multi-State Structural Modeling of Proteins and Their Complexes Based on SAXS Profiles.” Nucleic Acids Research 44 (W1): W424–29.

  37. Schneidman-Duhovny, Dina, Seung Joong Kim, and Andrej Sali. 2012. “Integrative Structural Modeling with Small Angle X-Ray Scattering Profiles.” BMC Structural Biology 12 (July): 17.

  38. Serra, F., D. Bau, M. Goodstadt, D. Castillo, G. J. Filion, and M. A. Marti-Renom. 2017. “Automatic Analysis and 3D-Modelling of Hi-C Data Using TADbit Reveals Structural Features of the Fly Chromatin Colors.” PLoS Computational Biology 13 (7): e1005665.

  39. Shen, Yang, Oliver Lange, Frank Delaglio, Paolo Rossi, James M. Aramini, Gaohua Liu, Alexander Eletsky, et al. 2008. “Consistent Blind Protein Structure Generation from NMR Chemical Shift Data.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105 (12): 4685–90.

  40. Söding, Johannes, Andreas Biegert, and Andrei N. Lupas. 2005. “The HHpred Interactive Server for Protein Homology Detection and Structure Prediction.” Nucleic Acids Research 33 (Web Server issue): W244–48.

  41. Steinegger, Martin, Markus Meier, Milot Mirdita, Harald Vöhringer, Stephan J. Haunsberger, and Johannes Söding. 2019. “HH-suite3 for Fast Remote Homology Detection and Deep Protein Annotation.” BMC Bioinformatics 20 (1): 473.

  42. Trigg, Jason, Karl Gutwin, Amy E. Keating, and Bonnie Berger. 2011. “Multicoil2: Predicting Coiled Coils and Their Oligomerization States from Sequence in the Twilight Zone.” PloS One 6 (8): e23519.

  43. Trnka, Michael J., Peter R. Baker, Philip J. J. Robinson, A. L. Burlingame, and Robert J. Chalkley. 2014. “Matching Cross-Linked Peptide Spectra: Only as Good as the Worse Identification.” Molecular & Cellular Proteomics: MCP 13 (2): 420–34.

  44. Tubiana, Thibault, Jean-Charles Carvaillo, Yves Boulard, and Stéphane Bressanelli. 2018. “TTClust: A Versatile Molecular Simulation Trajectory Clustering Program with Graphical Summaries.” Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling 58 (11): 2178–82.

  45. Vries, Sjoerd J. de, and Alexandre M. J. J. Bonvin. 2011. “CPORT: A Consensus Interface Predictor and Its Performance in Prediction-Driven Docking with HADDOCK.” PloS One 6 (3): e17695.

  46. Wang, Yan, Jian Wang, Ruiming Li, Qiang Shi, Zhidong Xue, and Yang Zhang. 2017. “ThreaDomEx: A Unified Platform for Predicting Continuous and Discontinuous Protein Domains by Multiple-Threading and Segment Assembly.” Nucleic Acids Research 45 (W1): W400–407.

  47. Waterhouse, Andrew, Martino Bertoni, Stefan Bienert, Gabriel Studer, Gerardo Tauriello, Rafal Gumienny, Florian T. Heer, et al. 2018. “SWISS-MODEL: Homology Modelling of Protein Structures and Complexes.” Nucleic Acids Research 46 (W1): W296–303.

  48. Webb, B., and A. Sali. 2014. “Comparative Protein Structure Modeling Using Modeller.” In Current Protocols in Bioinformatics. John Wiley and Sons.

  49. Weinkam, Patrick, Jaume Pons, and Andrej Sali. 2012. “Structure-Based Model of Allostery Predicts Coupling between Distant Sites.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109 (13): 4875–80.

  50. Williams, Christopher J., Jeffrey J. Headd, Nigel W. Moriarty, Michael G. Prisant, Lizbeth L. Videau, Lindsay N. Deis, Vishal Verma, et al. 2018. “MolProbity: More and Better Reference Data for Improved All-Atom Structure Validation.” Protein Science: A Publication of the Protein Society 27 (1): 293–315.

  51. Wriggers, Willy. 2012. “Conventions and Workflows for Using Situs.” Acta Crystallographica. Section D, Biological Crystallography 68 (Pt 4): 344–51.

  52. Yang, Jianyi, Ivan Anishchenko, Hahnbeom Park, Zhenling Peng, Sergey Ovchinnikov, and David Baker. 2020. “Improved Protein Structure Prediction Using Predicted Interresidue Orientations.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 117 (3): 1496–1503.

  53. Yang, Jianyi, Renxiang Yan, Ambrish Roy, Dong Xu, Jonathan Poisson, and Yang Zhang. 2015. “The I-TASSER Suite: Protein Structure and Function Prediction.” Nature Methods 12 (1): 7–8.

  54. Yu, Jinchao, Geraldine Picord, Pierre Tuffery, and Raphael Guerois. 2015. “HHalign-Kbest: Exploring Sub-Optimal Alignments for Remote Homology Comparative Modeling.” Bioinformatics 31 (23): 3850–52.

  55. Zundert, G. C. P. van, and A. M. J. J. Bonvin. 2015. “DisVis: Quantifying and Visualizing Accessible Interaction Space of Distance-Restrained Biomolecular Complexes.” Bioinformatics 31 (19): 3222–24./p>

  56. Zundert, Gydo C. P. van, Adrien S. J. Melquiond, and Alexandre M. J. J. Bonvin. 2015. “Integrative Modeling of Biomolecular Complexes: HADDOCKing with Cryo-Electron Microscopy Data.” Structure 23 (5): 949–60.

Integrative Modeling Validation Package : Version 1.0

Supported by
National Science Foundation