ArticleProteins2016
Biological function derived from predicted structures in CASP11.
Article in Proteins, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Conservation of binding properties in protein models.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2021Article
- Article
- Article
- Biological and functional relevance of CASP predictions.Proteins · 2018Article
- Predictive and Experimental Approaches for Elucidating Protein-Protein Interactions and Quaternary Structures.International journal of molecular sciences · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
In CASP11, the organizers sought to bring the biological inferences from predicted structures to the fore. To accomplish this, we assessed the models for their ability to perform quantifiable tasks related to biological function. First, for 10 targets that were probable homodimers, we measured the accuracy of docking the models into homodimers as a function of GDT-TS of the monomers, which produced characteristic L-shaped plots. At low GDT-TS, none of the models could be docked correctly as homodimers. Above GDT-TS of ∼60%, some models formed correct homodimers in one of the largest docked clusters, while many other models at the same values of GDT-TS did not. Docking was more successful when many of the templates shared the same homodimer. Second, we docked a ligand from an experimental structure into each of the models of one of the targets. Docking to the models with two different programs produced poor ligand RMSDs with the experimental structure. Measures that evaluated similarity of contacts were reasonable for some of the models, although there was not a significant correlation with model accuracy. Finally, we assessed whether models would be useful in predicting the phenotypes of missense mutations in three human targets by comparing features calculated from the models with those calculated from the experimental structures. The models were successful in reproducing accessible surface areas but there was little correlation of model accuracy with calculation of FoldX evaluation of the change in free energy between the wild-type and the mutant. Proteins 2016; 84(Suppl 1):370-391. © 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.