Skip to main content
. 2022 Nov 25;78(Pt 12):1412–1427. doi: 10.1107/S2059798322010415

Table 2. List of register errors spanning 100 residues or more that were found using conkit-validate in the checkMySequence benchmark data set.

Structures listed under ‘Original Structure’ correspond to structures where an error was found using conkit-validate and those listed under ‘Alternative Structure’ correspond to a PDB deposition for the same protein where the register matches that found to achieve the CMO. The residue range and size of the register error might differ due to the presence of missing residues. FSC refers to the Fourier shell correlation between the specified range of residues and the density map. For each pair of structures, calculation of the FSC was performed using the map of the original deposited model where the error was predicted. In the case of the deposited models with the alternative sequence register, the model was superimposed on the original structure using GESAMT with default parameters before calculating the FSC. Sequence identity was calculated using all residues in both chains. The ‘Passes filtering’ column refers to whether the predicted sequence-register error meets the criteria described in Section 2.6 and provides a reason why these filters might not have been passed. Suspected false positives have been marked in the last column.

Original Structure Alternative Structure
PDB code, chain ID Resolution (Å) Year Residues Size FSC Citation Passes filtering Suspected false positive PDB code Resolution (Å) Year Sequence identity (%) Residues FSC Citation
5nd8, G 3.7 2017 44–169 125 0.33 Khusainov et al. (2017) Yes No 6s0z, F 2.3 2019 100 44–169 0.45 Halfon et al. (2019)
5nd8, O 3.7 2017 27–130 103 0.54 Khusainov et al. (2017) Yes No 6s0z, J 2.3 2021 100 27–130 0.79 Halfon et al. (2019)
5xlp, D 4.2 2017 16–339 323 0.53 Peng et al. (2017) Yes No 6vqv, E 2.57 2020 100 32–357 0.74 Zhang et al. (2020)
5yz0, A 4.7 2017 2–547 534 0.49 Rao et al. (2018) No: high Q-score Yes N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
5yz0, A 4.7 2017 555–1520 720 0.53 Rao et al. (2018) No: high Q-score Yes N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
5yz0, A 4.7 2017 1884–2110 226 0.61 Rao et al. (2018) Yes No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
6j5i, b 3.34 2019 3–208 205 0.34 Gu et al. (2019) No: insufficient contact information Yes N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
6klh, A 3.7 2020 1861–2007 107 0.20 Peng et al. (2020) No: high Q-score Yes N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
6rwa, E 4.0 2019 21–140 119 0.42 Leidreiter et al. (2019) Yes No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
6uxv, F 4.7 2019 597–779 168 0.60 Han et al. (2020) No: insufficient contact information Yes N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
6vyh, C 3.0 2020 130–232 102 0.48 Pan et al. (2020) No: high Q-score No 5kvg, L 1.7 2016 96 118–211 0.64 Zhao et al. (2016)
6w2s, 2 3.47 2020 644–870 226 0.43 Neupane et al. (2020) Yes No 6zp4, C 2.9 2020 98 644–870 0.56 Thoms et al. (2020)
6xe9, A 4.3 2020 852–1674 380 0.40 Yang et al. (2020) No: insufficient contact information Yes N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
6ybd, v 3.3 2020 33–154 121 0.33 Brito Querido et al. (2020) No: insufficient contact information No 6zp4, E 2.9 2020 98 33–154 0.09 Thoms et al. (2020)
6z6f, D 3.11 2021 117–235 118 0.46 Lee et al. (2021) No: insufficient contact information Yes N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
6zme, Lt 3.0 2020 7–138 115 0.15 Thoms et al. (2020) Yes No 7o7y, Bt 2.2 2021 100 9–138 0.005 Bhatt et al. (2021)
7adk, B 2.8 2020 196–385 184 0.36 Nottelet et al. (2021) No: high Q-score No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
7kdp, A 3.6 2020 643–768 125 0.64 Kumar et al. (2021) No: high Q-score Yes N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A