Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18077243›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Royal Society, Interface2008

A comparative study of the reported performance of ab initio protein structure prediction algorithms.

Glennie Helles

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Royal Society, Interface, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Modernizing biomolecular NMR: The POKY suite.The Journal of biological chemistry · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. A Novel Framework forAdvances in bioinformatics · 2018
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

1 author.

Glennie HellesUniversity of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 1, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark. glennie@giku.dk

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Protein structure prediction is one of the major challenges in bioinformatics today. Throughout the past five decades, many different algorithmic approaches have been attempted, and although progress has been made the problem remains unsolvable even for many small proteins. While the general objective is to predict the three-dimensional structure from primary sequence, our current knowledge and computational power are simply insufficient to solve a problem of such high complexity. Some prediction algorithms do, however, appear to perform better than others, although it is not always obvious which ones they are and it is perhaps even less obvious why that is. In this review, the reported performance results from 18 different recently published prediction algorithms are compared. Furthermore, the general algorithmic settings most likely responsible for the difference in the reported performance are identified, and the specific settings of each of the 18 prediction algorithms are also compared. The average normalized r.m.s.d. scores reported range from 11.17 to 3.48. With a performance measure including both r.m.s.d. scores and CPU time, the currently best-performing prediction algorithm is identified to be the I-TASSER algorithm. Two of the algorithmic settings--protein representation and fragment assembly--were found to have definite positive influence on the running time and the predicted structures, respectively. There thus appears to be a clear benefit from incorporating this knowledge in the design of new prediction algorithms.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsModels, ChemicalProtein ConformationComputational BiologyComputer SimulationProtein Folding

Identifiers

PMID18077243
PMCPMC2405928

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.