Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17905832›Full record

ArticleProtein science : a publication of the Protein Society2007

Fold assessment for comparative protein structure modeling.

Francisco Melo, Andrej Sali

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03061318 (Validation of a Multi-Genetic Test for the Diagnosis of Indeterminate Thyroid Nodules), which is not on this map. Cited by 55 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing 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.

NCT03061318 completednot on this mapstarted 2015, after this paper: background citation

Validation of a Multi-Genetic Test for the Diagnosis of Indeterminate Thyroid Nodules

TypeobservationalSponsorHernán GonzálezRan2015 to 2017Enrolled3,100ConditionsIndeterminate Thyroid Cytology
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

55 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Assessing scoring metrics for AlphaFold2 and AlphaFold3 protein complex predictions.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Insights into Comparative Modeling of VInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. International journal of molecular sciences · 2020
    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.

Francisco MeloDepartamento de Genética Molecular y Microbiología, Facultad de Ciencias Biológicas, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile. fmelo@bio.puc.cl
Andrej Sali

Funding

CENTER FOR STRUCTURAL GENOMICSP50GM062529 · NIGMS · SGX PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. · PI BURLEY, STEPHEN KEVIN · 2000 to 2004
$33.8M
Protein Modeling by Satisfaction of Spatial RestraintsR01GM054762 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI SALI, ANDREJ · 2001 to 2008
$2.1M
NIGMS NIH HHS P50 GM062529NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM054762NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM54762NIGMS NIH HHS U54 GM62529
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurate and automated assessment of both geometrical errors and incompleteness of comparative protein structure models is necessary for an adequate use of the models. Here, we describe a composite score for discriminating between models with the correct and incorrect fold. To find an accurate composite score, we designed and applied a genetic algorithm method that searched for a most informative subset of 21 input model features as well as their optimized nonlinear transformation into the composite score. The 21 input features included various statistical potential scores, stereochemistry quality descriptors, sequence alignment scores, geometrical descriptors, and measures of protein packing. The optimized composite score was found to depend on (1) a statistical potential z-score for residue accessibilities and distances, (2) model compactness, and (3) percentage sequence identity of the alignment used to build the model. The accuracy of the composite score was compared with the accuracy of assessment by single and combined features as well as by other commonly used assessment methods. The testing set was representative of models produced by automated comparative modeling on a genomic scale. The composite score performed better than any other tested score in terms of the maximum correct classification rate (i.e., 3.3% false positives and 2.5% false negatives) as well as the sensitivity and specificity across the whole range of thresholds. The composite score was implemented in our program MODELLER-8 and was used to assess models in the MODBASE database that contains comparative models for domains in approximately 1.3 million protein sequences.

Indexed as

Protein FoldingBayes TheoremDatabases, ProteinFalse Positive ReactionsModels, StatisticalMolecular ConformationMultivariate AnalysisProtein BindingProtein ConformationProteinsProtein Structure, TertiaryProteomicsReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificitySoftwareStereoisomerismProteins

Identifiers

PMID17905832
PMCPMC2211691

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.