ArticleJournal of the Royal Society, Interface2008
A comparative study of the reported performance of ab initio protein structure prediction algorithms.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Modernizing biomolecular NMR: The POKY suite.The Journal of biological chemistry · 2026Review
- Enhancing fragment-based protein structure prediction by customising fragment cardinality according to local secondary structure.BMC bioinformatics · 2020Article
- Molecular docking, molecular modeling, and molecular dynamics studies of azaisoflavone as dual COX-2 inhibitors and TP receptor antagonists.Journal of molecular modeling · 2018Article
- A Novel Framework forAdvances in bioinformatics · 2018Article
- Enhanced sampling techniques in molecular dynamics simulations of biological systems.Biochimica et biophysica acta · 2015Review
- Strategies and molecular tools to fight antimicrobial resistance: resistome, transcriptome, and antimicrobial peptides.Frontiers in microbiology · 2013Review
- Structure-function analysis of MurJ reveals a solvent-exposed cavity containing residues essential for peptidoglycan biogenesis in Escherichia coli.Journal of bacteriology · 2013Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
- NCACO-score: an effective main-chain dependent scoring function for structure modeling.BMC bioinformatics · 2011Article
- An automated procedure for detecting protein folds from sub-nanometer resolution electron density.Journal of structural biology · 2010Article
- A framework for evolutionary systems biology.BMC systems biology · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.