The paper with this structure was published in the year 2008, following which, the PI and coPIs who co-authored the paper would have submitted grants using this information as preliminary data. It is possible some of these grant applications may even have got funded at the expense of other grants that had the good data. This is the not the first instance, there have been papers/structures that have been retracted after ten years of publication.

Is there any thing the funding agencies can do?

Sridhar


On 8/10/2011 3:50 PM, Dale Tronrud wrote:
    Oops!  My bond length rmsd was 0.106 not 0.160 A.  Still unacceptable
but not quite as bad.

Sorry,
Dale Tronrud

On 08/10/11 15:45, Dale Tronrud wrote:
    I've made a quick look at the model and the paper - and it doesn't
need more than a quick look.  The description of the model in
the paper sounds great.  The problems in the model are clear.  My
favorite is the quote "Trp-477 of PTH1R makes several van der Waals
contacts with Trp-339 and Lys-337 of G-beta-1 ...".  They are "contacts"
all right.  The distances between the 477:CH2 and 337:CE is 2.75 A
and between 477:NE1 and 339:CH2 is 2.26 A.  There are many more.

    In general the geometry of this entire model is terrible.  In
Table 1 the bond length rmsd is listed at 1.64 A and the bond angles
are 0.0078 deg!  Perhaps one is to presume the numbers should be
swapped.  In any case, the values I calculate for the model are
0.160 A and 4.46 deg!  Absolutely dreadful.  The PDB header lists
the (swapped) values from the paper and then reports hundreds of
outliers.

    The tools proposed by the Validation Task Force should cause a
model like this to pop out clearly.  Even the old tools show this
model is quite unreliable.  We just have to use them.

Dale Tronrud

On 08/10/11 14:35, Jacob Keller wrote:
On the surface it doesn't seem as bad as others, i.e., it does not
seem to be a real fake--perhaps just a strong form of wishful thinking
and creative density interpretation. I wonder what would be a good
metric in which to establish a cutoff for present/not present in
density. CC, maybe?

Jacob

On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 4:01 PM, David Schuller<dj...@cornell.edu>  wrote:
Time to fuel up the gossip engines for the approaching weekend:


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096921260800186X

RETRACTED: Structure of the Parathyroid Hormone Receptor C Terminus Bound to
the G-Protein Dimer Gβ1γ2
Structure, Volume 16, Issue 7, 9 July 2008, Pages 1086-1094
Structure 2QNS withdrawn.

--
=======================================================================
All Things Serve the Beam
=======================================================================
                                David J. Schuller
                                modern man in a post-modern world
                                MacCHESS, Cornell University
                                schul...@cornell.edu




<<attachment: sprasad.vcf>>

Reply via email to