Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22942732›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of molecular sciences2012

Comparison of different ranking methods in protein-ligand binding site prediction.

Jun Gao, Qi Liu, Hong Kang, Zhiwei Cao, Ruixin Zhu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of molecular sciences, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

5 authors.

Jun GaoCollege of Life Science and Biotechnology, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China.
Qi LiuCollege of Life Science and Biotechnology, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China.
Hong KangCollege of Life Science and Biotechnology, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China.
Zhiwei CaoCollege of Life Science and Biotechnology, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China.
Ruixin ZhuCollege of Life Science and Biotechnology, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, although many ligand-binding site prediction methods have been developed, there has still been a great demand to improve the prediction accuracy and compare different prediction algorithms to evaluate their performances. In this work, in order to improve the performance of the protein-ligand binding site prediction method presented in our former study, a comparison of different binding site ranking lists was studied. Four kinds of properties, i.e., pocket size, distance from the protein centroid, sequence conservation and the number of hydrophobic residues, have been chosen as the corresponding ranking criterion respectively. Our studies show that the sequence conservation information helps to rank the real pockets with the most successful accuracy compared to others. At the same time, the pocket size and the distance of binding site from the protein centroid are also found to be helpful. In addition, a multi-view ranking aggregation method, which combines the information among those four properties, was further applied in our study. The results show that a better performance can be achieved by the aggregation of the complementary properties in the prediction of ligand-binding sites.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsBinding SitesProteinsSequence Analysis, ProteinProteinspredictionprotein-ligand binding siteranking aggregation

Identifiers

PMID22942732
PMCPMC3430263

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.