Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22809379›Full record

ArticleJournal of bioinformatics and computational biology2012

Recursive protein modeling: a divide and conquer strategy for Protein Structure Prediction and its case study in CASP9.

Jianlin Cheng, Jesse Eickholt, Zheng Wang, Xin Deng

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of bioinformatics and computational biology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

4 authors.

Jianlin ChengDepartment of Computer Science, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211, USA. chengji@missouri.edu
Jesse Eickholt
Zheng Wang
Xin Deng

Funding

Integrated Prediction of Protein Struture at 1D, 2D and 3D LevelsR01GM093123 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-COLUMBIA · PI CHENG, JIANLIN · 2010 to 2023
$3.8M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM093123NIGMS NIH HHS R01GM093123
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

After decades of research, protein structure prediction remains a very challenging problem. In order to address the different levels of complexity of structural modeling, two types of modeling techniques--template-based modeling and template-free modeling--have been developed. Template-based modeling can often generate a moderate- to high-resolution model when a similar, homologous template structure is found for a query protein but fails if no template or only incorrect templates are found. Template-free modeling, such as fragment-based assembly, may generate models of moderate resolution for small proteins of low topological complexity. Seldom have the two techniques been integrated together to improve protein modeling. Here we develop a recursive protein modeling approach to selectively and collaboratively apply template-based and template-free modeling methods to model template-covered (i.e. certain) and template-free (i.e. uncertain) regions of a protein. A preliminary implementation of the approach was tested on a number of hard modeling cases during the 9th Critical Assessment of Techniques for Protein Structure Prediction (CASP9) and successfully improved the quality of modeling in most of these cases. Recursive modeling can significantly reduce the complexity of protein structure modeling and integrate template-based and template-free modeling to improve the quality and efficiency of protein structure prediction.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsAmino Acid SequenceModels, MolecularMolecular Sequence DataProtein FoldingProteinsProtein Structure, TertiaryProteins

Identifiers

PMID22809379
PMCPMC3622867

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.