Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Sep 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Comput Aided Mol Des. 2015 Feb 10;29(9):817–836. doi: 10.1007/s10822-015-9833-8

Table 1.

Electron density-based validation of protein–ligand models

Scores Classification Remedy


RSCC % of
structures
Predicted number
of PDB
Twilight VHELIBS
1.0–0.9 67 ~46,900 Ligand fits density ‘Good’ Ligand model good to use
<0.9–0.8 21 ~14,700 Ligand fits density partially ‘Dubious’ Ligand over-modeled or may benefit from further refinement
<0.8–0.7 7 ~4,900 Significant parts of ligand not in density ‘Bad’ Use ligand model with caution!
<0.7–0.6 3 ~2,100 Very poor fit of ligand to density
<0.6–0.5 1 ~700 Improbably poor fit of ligand to density, density almost absent
<0.5 1 ~700 Catastrophic fit of ligand to density, density completely absent

Real Space Correlation Coefficient (RSCC) values were calculated using Twilight [12, 15] and classifications determined using Twilight and VHELIBS [14]. The percentage of structures was determined using a curated set of 382,588 ligands from the PDB with electron density available in the EDS [20]. Pre-calculated data available for download from http://bit.ly/1shcwu4. The predicted number of PDB entries was calculated using the percentage of ligands in each category in the curated set and applying to the total PDB count (just over 70,000 protein–ligand models in the PDB as of Nov, 2014). This is likely a conservative estimate based on the assumption that each PDB files contains just one ligand