Skip to main content
Bioinformatics logoLink to Bioinformatics
. 2019 Jul 2;35(24):5389–5390. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btz532

ValTrendsDB: bringing Protein Data Bank validation information closer to the user

Vladimír Horský 1,2, Veronika Bendová 1,2,3, Dominik Toušek 1,2, Jaroslav Koča 1,2, Radka Svobodová 1,2,
Editor: Janet Kelso
PMCID: PMC6954638  PMID: 31263870

Abstract

Summary

Structures in PDB tend to contain errors. This is a very serious issue for authors that rely on such potentially problematic data. The community of structural biologists develops validation methods as countermeasures, which are also included in the PDB deposition system. But how are these validation efforts influencing the structure quality of subsequently published data? Which quality aspects are improving, and which remain problematic? We developed ValTrendsDB, a database that provides the results of an extensive exploratory analysis of relationships between quality criteria, size and metadata of biomacromolecules. Key input data are sourced from PDB. The discovered trends are presented via precomputed information-rich plots. ValTrendsDB also supports the visualization of a set of user-defined structures on top of general quality trends. Therefore, ValTrendsDB enables users to see the quality of structures published by selected author, laboratory or journal, discover quality outliers, etc. ValTrendsDB is updated weekly.

Availability and implementation

Freely accessible at http://ncbr.muni.cz/ValTrendsDB. The web interface was implemented in JavaScript. The database was implemented in C++.

Supplementary information

Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

1 Introduction

Biomacromolecular structural data are key results of modern life sciences. Their importance is reinforced by 13 Nobel prizes that were awarded for research on these data (ebi.ac.uk/pdbe/docs/nobel/nobels.html). Most structures of biomacromolecules and their ligands are accessible via the Protein Data Bank (PDB) database (Burley et al., 2018). However, some structures were found to contain serious errors (Rupp, 2012). This discovery showed the importance of the validation of biomacromolecular complexes. The first validation approaches were focused on the geometric properties of standard biomacromolecular residues (i.e. amino acids, nucleotides) (Chen et al., 2010). This validation approach was later extended to validate ligands (Bruno et al., 2004). A step forward in validation was the release of PDB validation reports (Gore et al., 2017) for almost every structure.

A major question is how the validation efforts of the scientific community are influencing the quality of structural data. Our cooperation with the Protein Data Bank in Europe (PDBe) motivated us to ask broader questions: How is the quality of biomacromolecular complexes changing over time? What factors are influencing it? To suggest answers to these questions, we carried out an exploratory analysis of trends between quality criteria, size (e.g. atom count) and the metadata of biomacromolecules (e.g. year of release). Its results can be explored in the novel ValTrendsDB database.

2 Database construction

ValTrendsDB is a database that presents the results of the factor pair relationship analysis. A factor represents a property or a validation metric. In the current version of ValTrendsDB, users can view trends between nearly 1700 pairs of factors that are sorted into groups. Descriptions of every factor and dataset version can be found in the Supplementary Data.

Input data for the analysis came from two sources. The PDB database provided biomacromolecular structures, as well as their validation results. This information was obtained for each structure from the mmCIF file, from the validation report, from queries to the PDBe REST API, and from the Chemical Component Dictionary, which is a database of ligands found in PDB entries (Westbrook et al., 2015). Additional ligand quality information was acquired from the ValidatorDB database (Sehnal et al., 2015). All PDB entries were included, regardless of their refinement method.

All the gathered data were processed statistically. Values of factors in pairs were sorted into nonequidistant intervals, which were then represented by an arithmetic mean. This workflow was designed to deal with dataset issues, e.g. the skewness of value distribution, while preserving the interpretability of factor pair plots. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients were used to assess the factor pair relationships. Details of the workflow can be found in the Supplementary Data.

3 Functionality

The ValTrendsDB database brings the current state of biomacromolecular structure quality, along with its progress, trends and issues, closer to its users. They can view plots of each trend in the relationship of factor pairs. An example of such a plot is depicted in Supplementary Figure S1 on page 8 in the Supplementary Data.

Users can highlight data points representing their own set of PDB entries on top of global trends. With this functionality, they can pinpoint qualitative outliers, as well as view trends in the quality and properties of a set of structures that are of interest to them. It is suitable for the visualization and comparison of trends among, e.g. structures of a journal, protein family, experimental method, or structures from an author.

4 Discussion

The analysis identified several interesting quality-related trends. All of these trends are shown in much greater detail in the Supplementary Data. Namely, we found that the quality of geometry of biomacromolecular structures in PDB is steadily increasing. However, the same cannot be said in general for the quality of agreement between structure models and their source electron density, as well as for all quality aspects of ligand models. In these two cases, some quality factors are showing an improvement over time, while others are not.

It is not surprising that nearly all size factors show a trend of increasing size of biomacromolecular complexes over time, while a number of them show strong relationships with quality factors. Similarly, several quality factors exhibit strong relationships with the resolution of X-ray structures. Plots that show the discussed trends are included in the Supplementary Data.

ValTrendsDB is unique because of the breadth of the analysis whose results it presents. No other similar published analysis contains as many factors, as many data points, or is updated automatically on a weekly basis. That is why another publication that is being worked on will focus on the analysis itself.

The European Bioinformatics Institute, which maintains the PDBe, plans to integrate selected data and some of the plots from ValTrendsDB into their new validation pages. Specifically, PDBe will use these data to plot charts that will show the relative quality of an entry, as well as embed a few plots that show database-wide trends. The full functionality of ValTrendsDB will, however, remain solely on its website.

Supplementary Material

btz532_Supplementary_Data

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Sameer Velankar and Oliver Smart (EMBL-EBI UK) for their valuable input on the whole project. We would also like to thank Jonáš Rosecký (FI MUNI CZ) for implementing the first version of the website.

Funding

This work was supported by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic under the project CEITEC 2020 [grant number LQ1601]; the ELIXIR-EXCELERATE project, which received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme [grant number 676559]; ELIXIR CZ research infrastructure project including access to computing and storage facilities [grant number LM2015047]; European Regional Development Fund – projects ELIXIR-CZ [grant number CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/16_013/0001777] and RIAT-CZ [grant number ATCZ40]; and the Grant Agency of Masaryk University [grant number MUNI/A/1503/2018 to V.B.].

Conflict of Interest: none declared.

References

  1. Bruno I.J. et al. (2004) Retrieval of crystallographically-derived molecular geometry information. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 44, 2133–2144. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Burley S.K. et al. (2018) Protein Data Bank: the single global archive for 3D macromolecular structure data. Nucleic Acids Res., 47, D520–D528. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Chen V.B. et al. (2010) MolProbity: all-atom structure validation for macromolecular crystallography. Acta Crystallogr. D Biol. Crystallogr., 66, 12–21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Gore S. et al. (2017) Validation of structures in the Protein Data Bank. Structure, 25, 1916–1927. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Rupp B. (2012) Detection and analysis of unusual features in the structural model and structure-factor data of a birch pollen allergen. Acta Crystallogr. Sect. F Struct. Biol. Cryst. Commun., 68, 366–376. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Sehnal D. et al. (2015) ValidatorDB: database of up-to-date validation results for ligands and non-standard residues from the Protein Data Bank. Nucleic Acids Res. Database Issue, 43, D369–D375. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Westbrook J.D. et al. (2015) The chemical component dictionary: complete descriptions of constituent molecules in experimentally determined 3D macromolecules in the Protein Data Bank. Bioinformatics, 31, 1274–1278. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

btz532_Supplementary_Data

Articles from Bioinformatics are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES