ArticleProtein science : a publication of the Protein Society2012
An iterative self-refining and self-evaluating approach for protein model quality estimation.
Article in Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Benchmarking Deep Networks for Predicting Residue-Specific Quality of Individual Protein Models in CASP11.Scientific reports · 2016Article
- Improved model quality assessment using ProQ2.BMC bioinformatics · 2012Article
- The MULTICOM toolbox for protein structure prediction.BMC bioinformatics · 2012Article
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
Evaluating or predicting the quality of protein models (i.e., predicted protein tertiary structures) without knowing their native structures is important for selecting and appropriately using protein models. We describe an iterative approach that improves the performances of protein Model Quality Assurance Programs (MQAPs). Given the initial quality scores of a list of models assigned by a MQAP, the method iteratively refines the scores until the ranking of the models does not change. We applied the method to the model quality assessment data generated by 30 MQAPs during the Eighth Critical Assessment of Techniques for Protein Structure Prediction. To various degrees, our method increased the average correlation between predicted and real quality scores of 25 out of 30 MQAPs and reduced the average loss (i.e., the difference between the top ranked model and the best model) for 28 MQAPs. Particularly, for MQAPs with low average correlations (<0.4), the correlation can be increased by several times. Similar experiments conducted on the CASP9 MQAPs also demonstrated the effectiveness of the method. Our method is a hybrid method that combines the original method of a MQAP and the pair-wise comparison clustering method. It can achieve a high accuracy similar to a full pair-wise clustering method, but with much less computation time when evaluating hundreds of models. Furthermore, without knowing native structures, the iterative refining method can evaluate the performance of a MQAP by analyzing its model quality predictions.
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.