ArticleBMC structural biology2009
Improving consensus contact prediction via server correlation reduction.
Article in BMC structural biology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- QAUST: Protein Function Prediction Using Structure Similarity, Protein Interaction, and Functional Motifs.Genomics, proteomics & bioinformatics · 2021Article
- Contact prediction is hardest for the most informative contacts, but improves with the incorporation of contact potentials.PloS one · 2018Article
- NeBcon: protein contact map prediction using neural network training coupled with naïve Bayes classifiers.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2017Article
- CMsearch: simultaneous exploration of protein sequence space and structure space improves not only protein homology detection but also protein structure prediction.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2016Article
- LigandRFs: random forest ensemble to identify ligand-binding residues from sequence information alone.BMC bioinformatics · 2014Article
- Protein structural model selection by combining consensus and single scoring methods.PloS one · 2013Article
- eThread: a highly optimized machine learning-based approach to meta-threading and the modeling of protein tertiary structures.PloS one · 2012Article
- Sampling multiple scoring functions can improve protein loop structure prediction accuracy.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2011Article
- Improving predicted protein loop structure ranking using a Pareto-optimality consensus method.BMC structural biology · 2010Article
- Distant homologs of anti-apoptotic factor HAX1 encode parvalbumin-like calcium binding proteins.BMC research notes · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProtein inter-residue contacts play a crucial role in the determination and prediction of protein structures. Previous studies on contact prediction indicate that although template-based consensus methods outperform sequence-based methods on targets with typical templates, such consensus methods perform poorly on new fold targets. However, we find out that even for new fold targets, the models generated by threading programs can contain many true contacts. The challenge is how to identify them.
resultsIn this paper, we develop an integer linear programming model for consensus contact prediction. In contrast to the simple majority voting method assuming that all the individual servers are equally important and independent, the newly developed method evaluates their correlation by using maximum likelihood estimation and extracts independent latent servers from them by using principal component analysis. An integer linear programming method is then applied to assign a weight to each latent server to maximize the difference between true contacts and false ones. The proposed method is tested on the CASP7 data set. If the top L/5 predicted contacts are evaluated where L is the protein size, the average accuracy is 73%, which is much higher than that of any previously reported study. Moreover, if only the 15 new fold CASP7 targets are considered, our method achieves an average accuracy of 37%, which is much better than that of the majority voting method, SVM-LOMETS, SVM-SEQ, and SAM-T06. These methods demonstrate an average accuracy of 13.0%, 10.8%, 25.8% and 21.2%, respectively.
conclusionReducing server correlation and optimally combining independent latent servers show a significant improvement over the traditional consensus methods. This approach can hopefully provide a powerful tool for protein structure refinement and prediction use.
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.