Changes in the midpalatal and pterygopalatine sutures induced by micro-implant-supported skeletal expander, analyzed with a novel 3D method based on CBCT imaging

Abstract Background Mini-implant-assisted rapid palatal expansion (MARPE) appliances have been developed with the aim to enhance the orthopedic effect induced by rapid maxillary expansion (RME). Maxillary Skeletal Expander (MSE) is a particular type of MARPE appliance characterized by the presence of four mini-implants positioned in the posterior part of the palate with bi-cortical engagement. The aim of the present study is to evaluate the MSE effects on the midpalatal and pterygopalatine sutures in late adolescents, using high-resolution CBCT. Specific aims are to define the magnitude and sagittal parallelism of midpalatal suture opening, to measure the extent of transverse asymmetry of split, and to illustrate the possibility of splitting the pterygopalatine suture. Methods Fifteen subjects (mean age of 17.2 years; range, 13.9–26.2 years) were treated with MSE. Pre- and post-treatment CBCT exams were taken and superimposed. A novel methodology based on three new reference planes was utilized to analyze the sutural changes. Parameters were compared from pre- to post-treatment and between genders non-parametrically using the Wilcoxon sign rank test. For the frequency of openings in the lower part of the pterygopalatine suture, the Fisher’s exact test was used. Results Regarding the magnitude of midpalatal suture opening, the split at anterior nasal spine (ANS) and at posterior nasal spine (PNS) was 4.8 and 4.3 mm, respectively. The amount of split at PNS was 90% of that at ANS, showing that the opening of the midpalatal suture was almost perfectly parallel antero-posteriorly. On average, one half of the anterior nasal spine (ANS) moved more than the contralateral one by 1.1 mm. Openings between the lateral and medial plates of the pterygoid process were detectable in 53% of the sutures (P < 0.05). No significant differences were found in the magnitude and frequency of suture opening between males and females. Correlation between age and suture opening was negligible (R 2 range, 0.3–4.2%). Conclusions Midpalatal suture was successfully split by MSE in late adolescents, and the opening was almost perfectly parallel in a sagittal direction. Regarding the extent of transverse asymmetry of the split, on average one half of ANS moved more than the contralateral one by 1.1 mm. Pterygopalatine suture was split in its lower region by MSE, as the pyramidal process was pulled out from the pterygoid process. Patient gender and age had a negligible influence on suture opening for the age group considered in the study

The CCP4 suite: integrative software for macromolecular crystallography

The Collaborative Computational Project No. 4 (CCP4) is a UK-led international collective with a mission to develop, test, distribute and promote software for macromolecular crystallography. The CCP4 suite is a multiplatform collection of programs brought together by familiar execution routines, a set of common libraries and graphical interfaces. The CCP4 suite has experienced several considerable changes since its last reference article, involving new infrastructure, original programs and graphical interfaces. This article, which is intended as a general literature citation for the use of the CCP4 software suite in structure determination, will guide the reader through such transformations, offering a general overview of the new features and outlining future developments. As such, it aims to highlight the individual programs that comprise the suite and to provide the latest references to them for perusal by crystallographers around the world.Jon Agirre is a Royal Society University Research Fellow (UF160039 and URF\R\221006). Mihaela Atanasova is funded by the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC; EP/R513386/1). Haroldas Bagdonas is funded by The Royal Society (RGF/R1/181006). Jose´ Javier Burgos-Ma´rmol and Daniel J. Rigden are supported by the BBSRC (BB/S007105/1). Robbie P. Joosten is funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 871037 (iNEXTDiscovery) and by CCP4. This work was supported by the Medical Research Council as part of United Kingdom Research and Innovation, also known as UK Research and Innovation: MRC file reference No. MC_UP_A025_1012 to Garib N. Murshudov, which also funded Keitaro Yamashita, Paul Emsley and Fei Long. Robert A. Nicholls is funded by the BBSRC (BB/S007083/1). Soon Wen Hoh is funded by the BBSRC (BB/T012935/1). Kevin D. Cowtan and Paul S. Bond are funded in part by the BBSRC (BB/S005099/1). John Berrisford and Sameer Velankar thank the European Molecular Biology Laboratory–European Bioinformatics Institute, who supported this work. Andrea Thorn was supported in the development of AUSPEX by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (05K19WWA and 05K22GU5) and by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (TH2135/2-1). Petr Kolenko and Martin Maly´ are funded by the MEYS CR (CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/16_019/0000778). Martin Maly´ is funded by the Czech Academy of Sciences (86652036) and CCP4/STFC (521862101). Anastassis Perrakis acknowledges funding from iNEXT (grant No. 653706), iNEXT-Discovery (grant No. 871037), West-Life (grant No. 675858) and EOSC-Life (grant No. 824087) funded by the Horizon 2020 program of the European Commission. Robbie P. Joosten has been the recipient of a Veni grant (722.011.011) and a Vidi grant (723.013.003) from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO). Maarten L. Hekkelman, Robbie P. Joosten and Anastassis Perrakis thank the Research High Performance Computing facility of the Netherlands Cancer Institute for providing and maintaining computation resources and acknowledge the institutional grant from the Dutch Cancer Society and the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport. Tarik R. Drevon is funded by the BBSRC (BB/S007040/1). Randy J. Read is supported by a Principal Research Fellowship from the Wellcome Trust (grant 209407/Z/17/Z). Atlanta G. Cook is supported by a Wellcome Trust SRF (200898) and a Wellcome Centre for Cell Biology core grant (203149). Isabel Uso´n acknowledges support from STFC-UK/CCP4: ‘Agreement for the integration of methods into the CCP4 software distribution, ARCIMBOLDO_LOW’ and Spanish MICINN/AEI/FEDER/UE (PID2021-128751NB-I00). Pavol Skubak and Navraj Pannu were funded by the NWO Applied Sciences and Engineering Domain and CCP4 (grant Nos. 13337 and 16219). Bernhard Lohkamp was supported by the Ro¨ntgen A˚ ngstro¨m Cluster (grant 349-2013-597). Nicholas Pearce is currently funded by the SciLifeLab and Wallenberg Data Driven Life Science Program (grant KAW 2020.0239) and has previously been funded by a Veni Fellowship (VI.Veni.192.143) from the Dutch Research Council (NWO), a Long-term EMBO fellowship (ALTF 609-2017) and EPSRC grant EP/G037280/1. David M. Lawson received funding from BBSRC Institute Strategic Programme Grants (BB/P012523/1 and BB/P012574/1). Lucrezia Catapano is the recipient of an STFC/CCP4-funded PhD studentship (Agreement No: 7920 S2 2020 007).Peer reviewe

Community recommendations on cryoEM data archiving and validation

In January 2020, a workshop was held at EMBL-EBI (Hinxton, UK) to discuss data requirements for the deposition and validation of cryoEM structures, with a focus on single-particle analysis. The meeting was attended by 47 experts in data processing, model building and refinement, validation, and archiving of such structures. This report describes the workshop’s motivation and history, the topics discussed, and the resulting consensus recommendations. Some challenges for future methods-development efforts in this area are also highlighted, as is the implementation to date of some of the recommendations.The workshop was supported by funding to PDBe and EMDB by the Wellcome Trust (grant No. 104948/Z/14/Z awarded to GJK, SV and AP) and by the European Molecular Biology Laboratory. Travel was supported by the PDBe, EMDB, RCSB PDB, PDBj, BMRB and EMDR. RCSB PDB is jointly funded by the National Science Foundation (grant No. DBI1832184); the US Department of Energy (grant No. DESC0019749); and the National Cancer Institute, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health (grant No. R01GM133198). PDBj is funded by JST-NBDC and BMRB by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (grant No. R24GM150793). EMDR was funded by the NIGMS of the NIH (grant No. R01GM079429).Peer reviewe

Outcome of the First wwPDB/CCDC/D3R Ligand Validation Workshop.

Crystallographic studies of ligands bound to biological macromolecules (proteins and nucleic acids) represent an important source of information concerning drug-target interactions, providing atomic level insights into the physical chemistry of complex formation between macromolecules and ligands. Of the more than 115,000 entries extant in the Protein Data Bank (PDB) archive, ∼75% include at least one non-polymeric ligand. Ligand geometrical and stereochemical quality, the suitability of ligand models for in silico drug discovery and design, and the goodness-of-fit of ligand models to electron-density maps vary widely across the archive. We describe the proceedings and conclusions from the first Worldwide PDB/Cambridge Crystallographic Data Center/Drug Design Data Resource (wwPDB/CCDC/D3R) Ligand Validation Workshop held at the Research Collaboratory for Structural Bioinformatics at Rutgers University on July 30-31, 2015. Experts in protein crystallography from academe and industry came together with non-profit and for-profit software providers for crystallography and with experts in computational chemistry and data archiving to discuss and make recommendations on best practices, as framed by a series of questions central to structural studies of macromolecule-ligand complexes. What data concerning bound ligands should be archived in the PDB? How should the ligands be best represented? How should structural models of macromolecule-ligand complexes be validated? What supplementary information should accompany publications of structural studies of biological macromolecules? Consensus recommendations on best practices developed in response to each of these questions are provided, together with some details regarding implementation. Important issues addressed but not resolved at the workshop are also enumerated.The workshop was supported by funding to RCSB PDB by the National Science Foundation (DBI 1338415); PDBe by the Wellcome Trust (104948); PDBj by JST-NBDC; BMRB by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (GM109046); D3R by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (GM111528); registration fees from industrial participants; and tax-deductible donations to the wwPDB Foundation by the Genentech Foundation and the Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation.This is the final version of the article. It first appeared from Cell Press via https://doi.org//10.1016/j.str.2016.02.01

Outcome of the First wwPDB/CCDC/D3R Ligand Validation Workshop

Crystallographic studies of ligands bound to biological macromolecules (proteins and nucleic acids) represent an important source of information concerning drug-target interactions, providing atomic level insights into the physical chemistry of complex formation between macromolecules and ligands. Of the more than 115,000 entries extant in the Protein Data Bank (PDB) archive, ∼75% include at least one non-polymeric ligand. Ligand geometrical and stereochemical quality, the suitability of ligand models for in silico drug discovery and design, and the goodness-of-fit of ligand models to electron-density maps vary widely across the archive. We describe the proceedings and conclusions from the first Worldwide PDB/Cambridge Crystallographic Data Center/Drug Design Data Resource (wwPDB/CCDC/D3R) Ligand Validation Workshop held at the Research Collaboratory for Structural Bioinformatics at Rutgers University on July 30–31, 2015. Experts in protein crystallography from academe and industry came together with non-profit and for-profit software providers for crystallography and with experts in computational chemistry and data archiving to discuss and make recommendations on best practices, as framed by a series of questions central to structural studies of macromolecule-ligand complexes. What data concerning bound ligands should be archived in the PDB? How should the ligands be best represented? How should structural models of macromolecule-ligand complexes be validated? What supplementary information should accompany publications of structural studies of biological macromolecules? Consensus recommendations on best practices developed in response to each of these questions are provided, together with some details regarding implementation. Important issues addressed but not resolved at the workshop are also enumerated.This is the publisher’s final pdf. The published article is copyrighted by Elsevier (Cell Press) and can be found at: http://www.cell.com/structure/hom

The CCP4 suite : integrative software for macromolecular crystallography

The Collaborative Computational Project No. 4 (CCP4) is a UK-led international collective with a mission to develop, test, distribute and promote software for macromolecular crystallography. The CCP4 suite is a multiplatform collection of programs brought together by familiar execution routines, a set of common libraries and graphical interfaces. The CCP4 suite has experienced several considerable changes since its last reference article, involving new infrastructure, original programs and graphical interfaces. This article, which is intended as a general literature citation for the use of the CCP4 software suite in structure determination, will guide the reader through such transformations, offering a general overview of the new features and outlining future developments. As such, it aims to highlight the individual programs that comprise the suite and to provide the latest references to them for perusal by crystallographers around the world