ArticleProteins2014
Definition and classification of evaluation units for CASP10.
Article in Proteins, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed.
- To split or not to split: CASP15 targets and their processing into tertiary structure evaluation units.Proteins · 2023Article
- Using steered molecular dynamic tension for assessing quality of computational protein structure models.Journal of computational chemistry · 2022Article
- Assessment of domain interactions in the fourteenth round of the Critical Assessment of Structure Prediction (CASP14).Proteins · 2021Article
- Entropic Stabilization of Cas4 Protein SSO0001 Predicted with Popcoen.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018Article
- In silico structural characterization of protein targets for drug development against Trypanosoma cruzi.Journal of molecular modeling · 2016Article
- UniCon3D: de novo protein structure prediction using united-residue conformational search via stepwise, probabilistic sampling.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2016Article
- Evaluation of free modeling targets in CASP11 and ROLL.Proteins · 2016Article
- Article
- New encouraging developments in contact prediction: Assessment of the CASP11 results.Proteins · 2016Article
- Article
- Assessing the local structural quality of transmembrane protein models using statistical potentials (QMEANBrane).Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2014Article
- Assessment of template-free modeling in CASP10 and ROLL.Proteins · 2014Article
- Assessment of ligand binding site predictions in CASP10.Proteins · 2014Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Assessment of protein disorder region predictions in CASP10.Proteins · 2014Article
- Evaluation of residue-residue contact prediction in CASP10.Proteins · 2014Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
For the 10th experiment on Critical Assessment of the techniques of protein Structure Prediction (CASP), the prediction target proteins were broken into independent evaluation units (EUs), which were then classified into template-based modeling (TBM) or free modeling (FM) categories. We describe here how the EUs were defined and classified, what issues arose in the process, and how we resolved them. EUs are frequently not the whole target proteins but the constituting structural domains. However, the assessors from CASP7 on combined more than one domain into 1 EU for some targets, which implied that the assessment also included evaluation of the prediction of the relative position and orientation of these domains. In CASP10, we followed and expanded this notion by defining multidomain EUs for a number of targets. These included 3 EUs, each made of two domains of familiar fold but arranged in a novel manner and for which the focus of evaluation was the interdomain arrangement. An EU was classified to the TBM category if a template could be found by sequence similarity searches and to FM if a structural template could not be found by structural similarity searches. The EUs that did not fall cleanly in either of these cases were classified case-by-case, often including consideration of the overall quality and characteristics of the 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.