ArticleProteins2016
Assessment of CASP11 contact-assisted predictions.
Article in Proteins, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Practical Outcomes From CASP16 for Users in Need of Biomolecular Structure Prediction.Proteins · 2026Review
- Role of environmental specificity in CASP results.BMC bioinformatics · 2023Article
- RDbBMC bioinformatics · 2020Article
- Article
- Article
- Identification of residue pairing in interacting β-strands from a predicted residue contact map.BMC bioinformatics · 2018Article
- Article
- EigenTHREADER: analogous protein fold recognition by efficient contact map threading.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2017Article
- Why Is There a Glass Ceiling for Threading Based Protein Structure Prediction Methods?The journal of physical chemistry. B · 2017Article
- Article
- 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We present an overview of contact-assisted predictions in the eleventh round of critical assessment of protein structure prediction (CASP11), which included four categories: predicted contacts (Tp), correct contacts (Tc), simulated sparse NMR contacts (Ts), and cross-linking contacts (Tx). Comparison of assisted to unassisted model quality highlighted a relatively poor overall performance in CASP11 using predicted Tp and crosslinked Tx contact information. However, average model quality significantly improved in the correct Tc and simulated NMR Ts categories for most targets, where maximum improvement of unassisted models reached an impressive 70 GDT_TS. Comparison of the performance in the correct Tc category to CASP10 suggested the improvement in CASP11 model quality originated from an increased number of provided contacts per target. Group rankings based on a combination of scores used in the CASP11 free modeling (FM) assessment for each category highlight four top-performing groups, with three from the Lee lab and one from the Baker lab. We used the overall performance of these groups in each category to develop hypotheses for their relative outperformance in the correct Tc and simulated NMR Ts categories, which stemmed from the fraction of correct contacts provided (correct Tc category) and a reduced fraction of correct contacts offset by an increased coverage of the correct contacts (simulated NMR Ts category). Proteins 2016; 84(Suppl 1):164-180. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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.