ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2014
Redundancy-weighting for better inference of protein structural features.
Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Characterizing interactions in E-cadherin assemblages.Biophysical journal · 2023Article
- Estimation of model accuracy by a unique set of features and tree-based regressor.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- On the evolution of protein-adenine binding.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2020Article
- Complex evolutionary footprints revealed in an analysis of reused protein segments of diverse lengths.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2017Article
- Exploring the potential of a structural alphabet-based tool for mining multiple target conformations and target flexibility insight.PloS one · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
motivationStructural knowledge, extracted from the Protein Data Bank (PDB), underlies numerous potential functions and prediction methods. The PDB, however, is highly biased: many proteins have more than one entry, while entire protein families are represented by a single structure, or even not at all. The standard solution to this problem is to limit the studies to non-redundant subsets of the PDB. While alleviating biases, this solution hides the many-to-many relations between sequences and structures. That is, non-redundant datasets conceal the diversity of sequences that share the same fold and the existence of multiple conformations for the same protein. A particularly disturbing aspect of non-redundant subsets is that they hardly benefit from the rapid pace of protein structure determination, as most newly solved structures fall within existing families.
resultsIn this study we explore the concept of redundancy-weighted datasets, originally suggested by Miyazawa and Jernigan. Redundancy-weighted datasets include all available structures and associate them (or features thereof) with weights that are inversely proportional to the number of their homologs. Here, we provide the first systematic comparison of redundancy-weighted datasets with non-redundant ones. We test three weighting schemes and show that the distributions of structural features that they produce are smoother (having higher entropy) compared with the distributions inferred from non-redundant datasets. We further show that these smoothed distributions are both more robust and more correct than their non-redundant counterparts. We suggest that the better distributions, inferred using redundancy-weighting, may improve the accuracy of knowledge-based potentials and increase the power of protein structure prediction methods. Consequently, they may enhance model-driven molecular biology.
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.