Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17498304›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2007

How accurate and statistically robust are catalytic site predictions based on closeness centrality?

Eric Chea, Dennis R Livesay

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

39 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Road networks structure analysis: A preliminary network science-based approach.Annals of mathematics and artificial intelligence · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Protein conformational switch discerned via network centrality properties.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2021
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

2 authors.

Eric CheaDepartment of Biological Sciences, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, CA 91768, USA. erc2009@med.cornell.edu <erc2009@med.cornell.edu>
Dennis R Livesay

Funding

Predicting protein flexibility and stabilityR01GM073082 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE · PI JACOBS, DONALD · 2006 to 2010
$1.6M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM073082
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe examine the accuracy of enzyme catalytic residue predictions from a network representation of protein structure. In this model, amino acid alpha-carbons specify vertices within a graph and edges connect vertices that are proximal in structure. Closeness centrality, which has shown promise in previous investigations, is used to identify important positions within the network. Closeness centrality, a global measure of network centrality, is calculated as the reciprocal of the average distance between vertex i and all other vertices.

resultsWe benchmark the approach against 283 structurally unique proteins within the Catalytic Site Atlas. Our results, which are inline with previous investigations of smaller datasets, indicate closeness centrality predictions are statistically significant. However, unlike previous approaches, we specifically focus on residues with the very best scores. Over the top five closeness centrality scores, we observe an average true to false positive rate ratio of 6.8 to 1. As demonstrated previously, adding a solvent accessibility filter significantly improves predictive power; the average ratio is increased to 15.3 to 1. We also demonstrate (for the first time) that filtering the predictions by residue identity improves the results even more than accessibility filtering. Here, we simply eliminate residues with physiochemical properties unlikely to be compatible with catalytic requirements from consideration. Residue identity filtering improves the average true to false positive rate ratio to 26.3 to 1. Combining the two filters together has little affect on the results. Calculated p-values for the three prediction schemes range from 2.7E-9 to less than 8.8E-134. Finally, the sensitivity of the predictions to structure choice and slight perturbations is examined.

conclusionOur results resolutely confirm that closeness centrality is a viable prediction scheme whose predictions are statistically significant. Simple filtering schemes substantially improve the method's predicted power. Moreover, no clear effect on performance is observed when comparing ligated and unligated structures. Similarly, the CC prediction results are robust to slight structural perturbations from molecular dynamics simulation.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalAmino Acid SequenceBinding SitesCatalytic DomainDatabases, FactualPredictive Value of TestsProtein Structure, SecondaryProtein Structure, TertiarySensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID17498304
PMCPMC1876251

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.