ArticlePloS one2015
Building a better fragment library for de novo protein structure prediction.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Enhanced Methodology for Peptide Tertiary Structure Prediction Using GRSA and Bio-Inspired Algorithm.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Physicochemical, functional, and evolutionary characteristics of protein loop regions in human andBiophysics and physicobiology · 2025Article
- Assigning secondary structure in proteins using AI.Journal of molecular modeling · 2021Article
- Protein Structure Prediction: Conventional and Deep Learning Perspectives.The protein journal · 2021Review
- Computational Methods for the Elucidation of Protein Structure and Interactions.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2021Review
- Enhancing fragment-based protein structure prediction by customising fragment cardinality according to local secondary structure.BMC bioinformatics · 2020Article
- Improved fragment-based protein structure prediction by redesign of search heuristics.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- Sequential search leads to faster, more efficient fragment-based de novo protein structure prediction.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2018Article
- The Binding Mechanism Between Inositol Phosphate (InsP) and the Jasmonate Receptor Complex: A Computational Study.Frontiers in plant science · 2018Article
- Article
- Comparing co-evolution methods and their application to template-free protein structure prediction.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2017Article
- Toward a detailed understanding of search trajectories in fragment assembly approaches to protein structure prediction.Proteins · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fragment-based approaches are the current standard for de novo protein structure prediction. These approaches rely on accurate and reliable fragment libraries to generate good structural models. In this work, we describe a novel method for structure fragment library generation and its application in fragment-based de novo protein structure prediction. The importance of correct testing procedures in assessing the quality of fragment libraries is demonstrated. In particular, the exclusion of homologs to the target from the libraries to correctly simulate a de novo protein structure prediction scenario, something which surprisingly is not always done. We demonstrate that fragments presenting different predominant predicted secondary structures should be treated differently during the fragment library generation step and that exhaustive and random search strategies should both be used. This information was used to develop a novel method, Flib. On a validation set of 41 structurally diverse proteins, Flib libraries presents both a higher precision and coverage than two of the state-of-the-art methods, NNMake and HHFrag. Flib also achieves better precision and coverage on the set of 275 protein domains used in the two previous experiments of the the Critical Assessment of Structure Prediction (CASP9 and CASP10). We compared Flib libraries against NNMake libraries in a structure prediction context. Of the 13 cases in which a correct answer was generated, Flib models were more accurate than NNMake models for 10. "Flib is available for download at: http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/research/proteins/resources".
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.