ArticleChemical engineering science2011
Enhanced Inter-helical Residue Contact Prediction in Transmembrane Proteins.
Article in Chemical engineering science, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Inter-Residue Distance Prediction From Duet Deep Learning Models.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- COMTOP: Protein Residue-Residue Contact Prediction through Mixed Integer Linear Optimization.Membranes · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In this paper, based on a recent work by McAllister and Floudas who developed a mathematical optimization model to predict the contacts in transmembrane alpha-helical proteins from a limited protein data set [1], we have enhanced this method by 1) building a more comprehensive data set for transmembrane alpha-helical proteins and this enhanced data set is then used to construct the probability sets, MIN-1N and MIN-2N, for residue contact prediction, 2) enhancing the mathematical model via modifications of several important physical constraints and 3) applying a new blind contact prediction scheme on different protein sets proposed from analyzing the contact prediction on 65 proteins from Fuchs et al. [2]. The blind contact prediction scheme has been tested on two different membrane protein sets. Firstly it is applied to five carefully selected proteins from the training set. The contact prediction of these five proteins uses probability sets built by excluding the target protein from the training set, and an average accuracy of 56% was obtained. Secondly, it is applied to six independent membrane proteins with complicated topologies, and the prediction accuracies are 73% for 2ZY9A, 21% for 3KCUA, 46% for 2W1PA, 64% for 3CN5A, 77% for 3IXZA and 83% for 3K3FA. The average prediction accuracy for the six proteins is 60.7%. The proposed approach is also compared with a support vector machine method (TMhit [3]) and it is shown that it exhibits better prediction accuracy.
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.