Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26335248›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

A Web Resource for Standardized Benchmark Datasets, Metrics, and Rosetta Protocols for Macromolecular Modeling and Design.

Shane Ó Conchúir, Kyle A Barlow, Roland A Pache, Noah Ollikainen, Kale Kundert, Matthew J O'Meara, Colin A Smith, Tanja Kortemme

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 47 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing 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

47 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Antibody Affinity Maturation by Computational Design.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Accurate protein stability predictions from homology models.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2023
    Article
  14. Accurate positioning of functional residues with robotics-inspired computational protein design.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors.

Shane Ó ConchúirCalifornia Institute for Quantitative Biosciences (QB3), University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America; Department of Bioengineering and Therapeutic Sciences, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America.
Kyle A BarlowGraduate Program in Bioinformatics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America.
Roland A PacheCalifornia Institute for Quantitative Biosciences (QB3), University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America; Department of Bioengineering and Therapeutic Sciences, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America.
Noah OllikainenGraduate Program in Bioinformatics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America.
Kale KundertGraduate Program in Biophysics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America.
Matthew J O'MearaDepartment of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America.
Colin A SmithCalifornia Institute for Quantitative Biosciences (QB3), University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America; Department of Bioengineering and Therapeutic Sciences, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America; Graduate Program in Bioinformatics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America.
Tanja KortemmeCalifornia Institute for Quantitative Biosciences (QB3), University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America; Department of Bioengineering and Therapeutic Sciences, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America; Graduate Program in Bioinformatics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America; Graduate Program in Biophysics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America.

Funding

STRUCTURAL BIOLOGY TRAINING PROGRAMT32GM008284 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI KORTEMME, TANJA · 1988 to 2022
$10.1M
BMI Bioinformatics Training GrantsT32GM067547 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI HERNANDEZ, RYAN D. · 2003 to 2022
$6.6M
Integrative Program in Complex Biological System (ipCBS)T32EB009383 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI MARSHALL, WALLACE, WEINER, ORION D · 2009 to 2022
$3.2M
Computational design of protein-based small-molecule biosensorsR01GM110089 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI KORTEMME, TANJA · 2015 to 2022
$2.3M
Integrating computation and genetics to quantify specificity in protein networksR01GM098101 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI KORTEMME, TANJA, KROGAN, NEVAN J · 2011 to 2014
$1.7M
NIBIB NIH HHS T32 EB009383NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM098101NIGMS NIH HHS R01GM098101NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM110089NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM008284NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM067547
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The development and validation of computational macromolecular modeling and design methods depend on suitable benchmark datasets and informative metrics for comparing protocols. In addition, if a method is intended to be adopted broadly in diverse biological applications, there needs to be information on appropriate parameters for each protocol, as well as metrics describing the expected accuracy compared to experimental data. In certain disciplines, there exist established benchmarks and public resources where experts in a particular methodology are encouraged to supply their most efficient implementation of each particular benchmark. We aim to provide such a resource for protocols in macromolecular modeling and design. We present a freely accessible web resource (https://kortemmelab.ucsf.edu/benchmarks) to guide the development of protocols for protein modeling and design. The site provides benchmark datasets and metrics to compare the performance of a variety of modeling protocols using different computational sampling methods and energy functions, providing a "best practice" set of parameters for each method. Each benchmark has an associated downloadable benchmark capture archive containing the input files, analysis scripts, and tutorials for running the benchmark. The captures may be run with any suitable modeling method; we supply command lines for running the benchmarks using the Rosetta software suite. We have compiled initial benchmarks for the resource spanning three key areas: prediction of energetic effects of mutations, protein design, and protein structure prediction, each with associated state-of-the-art modeling protocols. With the help of the wider macromolecular modeling community, we hope to expand the variety of benchmarks included on the website and continue to evaluate new iterations of current methods as they become available.

Indexed as

BenchmarkingDatasets as TopicInternetModels, MolecularAmino AcidsEvolution, ChemicalMutationProteinsThermodynamicsAmino AcidsProteins

Identifiers

PMID26335248
PMCPMC4559433

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.