ArticlePloS one2012
FunFOLDQA: a quality assessment tool for protein-ligand binding site residue predictions.
Article in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Protein Spatial Structure Meets Artificial Intelligence: Revolutionizing Drug Synergy-Antagonism in Precision Medicine.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025Pooled it
- Removal of evolutionarily conserved functional MYC domains in a tilapia cell line using a vector-based CRISPR/Cas9 system.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- A Comprehensive Review of Computation-Based Metal-Binding Prediction Approaches at the Residue Level.BioMed research international · 2022Review
- Article
- Structure-Function Relationship Study of a Secretory Amoebic Phosphatase: A Computational-Experimental Approach.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Article
- Proteins and Their Interacting Partners: An Introduction to Protein-Ligand Binding Site Prediction Methods with a Focus on FunFOLD3.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2021Article
- Computational methods and tools for binding site recognition between proteins and small molecules: from classical geometrical approaches to modern machine learning strategies.Journal of computer-aided molecular design · 2019Article
- Methods for the Refinement of Protein Structure 3D Models.International journal of molecular sciences · 2019Review
- Sequence-based prediction of physicochemical interactions at protein functional sites using a function-and-interaction-annotated domain profile database.BMC bioinformatics · 2018Article
- Proteins and Their Interacting Partners: An Introduction to Protein-Ligand Binding Site Prediction Methods.International journal of molecular sciences · 2015Review
- IntFOLD: an integrated server for modelling protein structures and functions from amino acid sequences.Nucleic acids research · 2015Article
- webPDBinder: a server for the identification of ligand binding sites on protein structures.Nucleic acids research · 2013Article
- The FunFOLD2 server for the prediction of protein-ligand interactions.Nucleic acids research · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The estimation of prediction quality is important because without quality measures, it is difficult to determine the usefulness of a prediction. Currently, methods for ligand binding site residue predictions are assessed in the function prediction category of the biennial Critical Assessment of Techniques for Protein Structure Prediction (CASP) experiment, utilizing the Matthews Correlation Coefficient (MCC) and Binding-site Distance Test (BDT) metrics. However, the assessment of ligand binding site predictions using such metrics requires the availability of solved structures with bound ligands. Thus, we have developed a ligand binding site quality assessment tool, FunFOLDQA, which utilizes protein feature analysis to predict ligand binding site quality prior to the experimental solution of the protein structures and their ligand interactions. The FunFOLDQA feature scores were combined using: simple linear combinations, multiple linear regression and a neural network. The neural network produced significantly better results for correlations to both the MCC and BDT scores, according to Kendall's τ, Spearman's ρ and Pearson's r correlation coefficients, when tested on both the CASP8 and CASP9 datasets. The neural network also produced the largest Area Under the Curve score (AUC) when Receiver Operator Characteristic (ROC) analysis was undertaken for the CASP8 dataset. Furthermore, the FunFOLDQA algorithm incorporating the neural network, is shown to add value to FunFOLD, when both methods are employed in combination. This results in a statistically significant improvement over all of the best server methods, the FunFOLD method (6.43%), and one of the top manual groups (FN293) tested on the CASP8 dataset. The FunFOLDQA method was also found to be competitive with the top server methods when tested on the CASP9 dataset. To the best of our knowledge, FunFOLDQA is the first attempt to develop a method that can be used to assess ligand binding site prediction quality, in the absence of experimental data.
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.