Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18457597›Full record

ArticleBMC structural biology2008

Improving the accuracy of template-based predictions by mixing and matching between initial models.

Tianyun Liu, Michal Guerquin, Ram Samudrala

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC structural biology, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
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.

Tianyun LiuDepartment of Microbiology, University of Washington, School of Medicine, Seattle, WA 98195, USA. tianyunl@stanford.edu
Michal Guerquin
Ram Samudrala

Funding

Protein structure from theory and experimentR33GM068152 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI SAMUDRALA, RAM · 2003 to 2005
$901k
NIGMS NIH HHS GM068152NIGMS NIH HHS R33 GM068152
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundComparative modeling is a technique to predict the three dimensional structure of a given protein sequence based primarily on its alignment to one or more proteins with experimentally determined structures. A major bottleneck of current comparative modeling methods is the lack of methods to accurately refine a starting initial model so that it approaches the resolution of the corresponding experimental structure. We investigate the effectiveness of a graph-theoretic clique finding approach to solve this problem.

resultsOur method takes into account the information presented in multiple templates/alignments at the three-dimensional level by mixing and matching regions between different initial comparative models. This method enables us to obtain an optimized conformation ensemble representing the best combination of secondary structures, resulting in the refined models of higher quality. In addition, the process of mixing and matching accumulates near-native conformations, resulting in discriminating the native-like conformation in a more effective manner. In the seventh Critical Assessment of Structure Prediction (CASP7) experiment, the refined models produced are more accurate than the starting initial models.

conclusionThis novel approach can be applied without any manual intervention to improve the quality of comparative predictions where multiple template/alignment combinations are available for modeling, producing conformational models of higher quality than the starting initial predictions.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsModels, MolecularProtein ConformationAmino Acid SequenceProteinsSequence AlignmentProteins

Identifiers

PMID18457597
PMCPMC2424052

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.