Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24267585›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2013

A study and benchmark of DNcon: a method for protein residue-residue contact prediction using deep networks.

Jesse Eickholt, Jianlin Cheng

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Illuminating the "Twilight Zone": Advances in Difficult Protein Modeling.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2023
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Deep Learning-Based Advances in Protein Structure Prediction.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. OMPcontact: An Outer Membrane Protein Inter-Barrel Residue Contact Prediction Method.Journal of computational biology : a journal of computational molecular cell biology · 2017
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Protein Residue Contacts and Prediction Methods.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2016
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

2 authors.

Jesse Eickholt
Jianlin Cheng

Funding

MU Biomedical Informatics Research Training ProgramT15LM007089 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-COLUMBIA · PI SIMOES, EDUARDO J · 1992 to 2011
$6.9M
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 R01GM093123NLM NIH HHS T15LM007089-20
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn recent years, the use and importance of predicted protein residue-residue contacts has grown considerably with demonstrated applications such as drug design, protein tertiary structure prediction and model quality assessment. Nevertheless, reported accuracies in the range of 25-35% stubbornly remain the norm for sequence based, long range contact predictions on hard targets. This is in spite of a prolonged effort on behalf of the community to improve the performance of residue-residue contact prediction. A thorough study of the quality of current residue-residue contact predictions and the evaluation metrics used as well as an analysis of current methods is needed to stimulate further advancement in contact prediction and its application. Such a study will better explain the quality and nature of residue-residue contact predictions generated by current methods and as a result lead to better use of this contact information.

resultsWe evaluated several sequence based residue-residue contact predictors that participated in the tenth Critical Assessment of protein Structure Prediction (CASP) experiment. The evaluation was performed using standard assessment techniques such as those used by the official CASP assessors as well as two novel evaluation metrics (i.e., cluster accuracy and cluster count). An in-depth analysis revealed that while most residue-residue contact predictions generated are not accurate at the residue level, there is quite a strong contact signal present when allowing for less than residue level precision. Our residue-residue contact predictor, DNcon, performed particularly well achieving an accuracy of 66% for the top L/10 long range contacts when evaluated in a neighbourhood of size 2. The coverage of residue-residue contact areas was also greater with DNcon when compared to other methods. We also provide an analysis of DNcon with respect to its underlying architecture and features used for classification.

conclusionsOur novel evaluation metrics demonstrate that current residue-residue contact predictions do contain a strong contact signal and are of better quality than standard evaluation metrics indicate. Our method, DNcon, is a robust, state-of-the-art residue-residue sequence based contact predictor and excelled under a number of evaluation schemes. It is available as a web service at http://iris.rnet.missouri.edu/dncon/.

Indexed as

Computational BiologyModels, MolecularProteinsProtein Structure, TertiarySequence Analysis, ProteinProteins

Identifiers

PMID24267585
PMCPMC3850995

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.