Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12441377›Full record

ArticleProtein science : a publication of the Protein Society2002

Transmembrane helix predictions revisited.

Chien Peter Chen, Andrew Kernytsky, Burkhard Rost

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 66 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
66citing papers in PubMed
8.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

66 citing papers in PubMed, 208 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Correcting mistakes in predicting distributions.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2018
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

6 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Chien Peter ChenDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular Biophysics, Columbia University, New York, New York 10032, USA.
Andrew Kernytsky
Burkhard Rost
Columbia University · USNew York Structural Biology Center · US

Funding

STRUCTURAL GENOMICS OF EUKARYOTIC MODEL ORGANISMSP50GM062413 · NIGMS · RUTGERS THE ST UNIV OF NJ NEW BRUNSWICK · PI MONTELIONE, GAETANO T · 2000 to 2004
$33.5M
Intruding into the midnight zone of protein comparisonsR01GM063029 · NIGMS · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI ROST, BURKHARD · 2001 to 2004
$1.1M
NIGMS NIH HHS 1-P50-GM62413-01NIGMS NIH HHS P50 GM062413NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM063029NIGMS NIH HHS R01-GM63029-01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Methods that predict membrane helices have become increasingly useful in the context of analyzing entire proteomes, as well as in everyday sequence analysis. Here, we analyzed 27 advanced and simple methods in detail. To resolve contradictions in previous works and to reevaluate transmembrane helix prediction algorithms, we introduced an analysis that distinguished between performance on redundancy-reduced high- and low-resolution data sets, established thresholds for significant differences in performance, and implemented both per-segment and per-residue analysis of membrane helix predictions. Although some of the advanced methods performed better than others, we showed in a thorough bootstrapping experiment based on various measures of accuracy that no method performed consistently best. In contrast, most simple hydrophobicity scale-based methods were significantly less accurate than any advanced method as they overpredicted membrane helices and confused membrane helices with hydrophobic regions outside of membranes. In contrast, the advanced methods usually distinguished correctly between membrane-helical and other proteins. Nonetheless, few methods reliably distinguished between signal peptides and membrane helices. We could not verify a significant difference in performance between eukaryotic and prokaryotic proteins. Surprisingly, we found that proteins with more than five helices were predicted at a significantly lower accuracy than proteins with five or fewer. The important implication is that structurally unsolved multispanning membrane proteins, which are often important drug targets, will remain problematic for transmembrane helix prediction algorithms. Overall, by establishing a standardized methodology for transmembrane helix prediction evaluation, we have resolved differences among previous works and presented novel trends that may impact the analysis of entire proteomes.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsAnimalsComputational BiologyMembrane ProteinsModels, MolecularProtein FoldingProtein Structure, SecondarySensitivity and SpecificitySoftwareMembrane Proteins

Identifiers

PMID12441377
PMCPMC2373751
OpenAlexW2034410027

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.