Performance in the model refinement category of the 13th round of Critical Assessment of Structure Prediction (CASP13) is assessed, showing that some groups consistently improve most starting models whereas the majority of participants continue to degrade the starting model on average. Using the ranking formula developed for CASP12, it is shown that only 7 of 32 groups perform better than a "naïve predictor" who just submits the starting model. Common features in their approaches include a dependence on physics-based force fields to judge alternative conformations and the use of molecular dynamics to relax models to local minima, usually with some restraints to prevent excessively large movements. In addition to the traditional CASP metrics that focus largely on the quality of the overall fold, alternative metrics are evaluated, including comparisons of the main-chain and side-chain torsion angles, and the utility of the models for solving crystal structures by the molecular replacement method. It is proposed that the introduction of these metrics, as well as consideration of the accuracy of coordinate error estimates, would improve the discrimination between good and very good models.

Performance in the template-based modeling (TBM) category of CASP13 is assessed here, using a variety of metrics. Performance of the predictor groups that participated is ranked using the primary ranking score that was developed by the assessors for CASP12. This reveals that the best results are obtained by groups that include contact predictions or inter-residue distance predictions derived from deep multiple sequence alignments. In cases where there is a good homolog in the wwPDB (TBM-easy category), the best results are obtained by modifying a template. However, for cases with poorer homologs (TBM-hard), very good results can be obtained without using an explicit template, by deep learning algorithms trained on the wwPDB. Alternative metrics are introduced, to allow testing of aspects of structural models that are not addressed by traditional CASP metrics. These include comparisons to the main-chain and side-chain torsion angles of the target, and the utility of models for solving crystal structures by the molecular replacement method. The alternative metrics are poorly correlated with the traditional metrics, and it is proposed that modeling has reached a sufficient level of maturity that the best models should be expected to satisfy this wider range of criteria.

Detection of translational noncrystallographic symmetry (TNCS) can be critical for success in crystallographic phasing, particularly when molecular-replacement models are poor or anomalous phasing information is weak. If the correct TNCS is detected then expected intensity factors for each reflection can be refined, so that the maximum-likelihood functions underlying molecular replacement and single-wavelength anomalous dispersion use appropriate structure-factor normalization and variance terms. Here, an analysis of a curated database of protein structures from the Protein Data Bank to investigate how TNCS manifests in the Patterson function is described. These studies informed an algorithm for the detection of TNCS, which includes a method for detecting the number of vectors involved in any commensurate modulation (the TNCS order). The algorithm generates a ranked list of possible TNCS associations in the asymmetric unit for exploration during structure solution.

Molecular-replacement phasing of macromolecular crystal structures is often fast, but if a molecular-replacement solution is not immediately obtained the crystallographer must judge whether to pursue molecular replacement or to attempt experimental phasing as the quickest path to structure solution. The introduction of the expected log-likelihood gain [eLLG; McCoy et al. (2017), Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 114, 3637-3641] has given the crystallographer a powerful new tool to aid in making this decision. The eLLG is the log-likelihood gain on intensity [LLGI; Read & McCoy (2016), Acta Cryst. D72, 375-387] expected from a correctly placed model. It is calculated as a sum over the reflections of a function dependent on the fraction of the scattering for which the model accounts, the estimated model coordinate error and the measurement errors in the data. It is shown how the eLLG may be used to answer the question `can I solve my structure by molecular replacement?'. However, this is only the most obvious of the applications of the eLLG. It is also discussed how the eLLG may be used to determine the search order and minimal data requirements for obtaining a molecular-replacement solution using a given model, and for decision making in fragment-based molecular replacement, single-atom molecular replacement and likelihood-guided model pruning.

Diffraction (X-ray, neutron and electron) and electron cryo-microscopy are powerful methods to determine three-dimensional macromolecular structures, which are required to understand biological processes and to develop new therapeutics against diseases. The overall structure-solution workflow is similar for these techniques, but nuances exist because the properties of the reduced experimental data are different. Software tools for structure determination should therefore be tailored for each method. Phenix is a comprehensive software package for macromolecular structure determination that handles data from any of these techniques. Tasks performed with Phenix include data-quality assessment, map improvement, model building, the validation/rebuilding/refinement cycle and deposition. Each tool caters to the type of experimental data. The design of Phenix emphasizes the automation of procedures, where possible, to minimize repetitive and time-consuming manual tasks, while default parameters are chosen to encourage best practice. A graphical user interface provides access to many command-line features of Phenix and streamlines the transition between programs, project tracking and re-running of previous tasks.