Note that in most cases a structure may only be obsoleted with the written agreement of a senior author. From experience it's by far the best approach to work together with the original authors on a correction, in any case. Goodwill is an important thing.
If you wish, you can go it alone and deposit a new structure based on data from an existing deposition, but it won't obsolete the old structure and I believe it will only be accepted if accompanied by a peer-reviewed publication. Hope this helps, Tristan Tristan Croll Research Fellow Cambridge Institute for Medical Research University of Cambridge CB2 0XY > On 27 Jun 2017, at 07:50, Vellieux Frédéric <frederic.velli...@ibt.cas.cz> > wrote: > > Hello, > > I think it makes sense to have a look at the policy of the PDB concerning > obsoleting structures: > > The publication is retracted. The associated PDB entry will be obsoleted if > requested by the journal. If a request has not been received, the wwPDB will > do its best to contact the depositor and co-authors, (former) PIs, journal > editors, etc. when made aware of the retraction. If the reason(s) for > retraction were such that the associated PDB entry needs to be made obsolete, > the wwPDB will obsolete the entry. The citation in the obsoleted entry is the > published journal retraction. > The structure is incorrect, and the entry author obsoletes the entry. The > entry must contain a statement as to the reason for obsoleting the structure. > A third-party (such as the employer) requests that the entry is obsoleted > (e.g., in case of malfeasance). The citation in the obsoleted entry must be a > published explanation and retraction in a peer-reviewed journal. > > Source: https://www.wwpdb.org/documentation/policy > > Cheers, > > Fred. > > From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Trevor > Sewell > Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 8:35 AM > To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK > Subject: [ccp4bb] Incorrect Structure in the PDB > > > I have come across a key paper in my field that describes an enzyme > mechanism. Their work is based on a deposited structure – by other authors - > that is incorrectly interpreted. > > Is there a process for removing a demonstrably wrong structure (deposited by > others) from the PDB and replacing it with a correctly interpreted structure > based on the original data? Or is there an alternative, and generally > recognized, way of getting the correct structure in the public domain? > > Many thanks for your advice on this matter. > > Trevor Sewell > > Disclaimer - University of Cape Town This e-mail is subject to UCT policies > and e-mail disclaimer published on our website at > http://www.uct.ac.za/about/policies/emaildisclaimer/ or obtainable from +27 > 21 650 9111. If this e-mail is not related to the business of UCT, it is sent > by the sender in an individual capacity. Please report security incidents or > abuse via cs...@uct.ac.za > ----- > Upozornění: Není-li v této zprávě výslovně uvedeno jinak, má tato E-mailová > zpráva nebo její přílohy pouze informativní charakter. Tato zpráva ani její > přílohy v žádném ohledu Biotechnologický ústav AV ČR, v. v. i. k ničemu > nezavazují. Text této zprávy nebo jejích příloh není návrhem na uzavření > smlouvy, ani přijetím případného návrhu na uzavření smlouvy, ani jiným > právním jednáním směřujícím k uzavření jakékoliv smlouvy a nezakládá > předsmluvní odpovědnost Biotechnologického ústavu AV ČR, v. v. i. > Disclaimer: If not expressly stated otherwise, this e-mail message (including > any attached files) is intended purely for informational purposes and does > not represent a binding agreement on the part of Institute of Biotechnology > CAS. The text of this message and its attachments cannot be considered as a > proposal to conclude a contract, nor the acceptance of a proposal to conclude > a contract, nor any other legal act leading to concluding any contract; nor > does it create any pre-contractual liability on the part of Institute of > Biotechnology CAS
