ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2016
Ensemble-based evaluation for protein structure models.
Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multilevel superposition for deciphering the conformational variability of protein ensembles.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2024Article
- Measuring the Conformational Distance of GPCR-related Proteins Using a Joint-based Descriptor.Scientific reports · 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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
motivationComparing protein tertiary structures is a fundamental procedure in structural biology and protein bioinformatics. Structure comparison is important particularly for evaluating computational protein structure models. Most of the model structure evaluation methods perform rigid body superimposition of a structure model to its crystal structure and measure the difference of the corresponding residue or atom positions between them. However, these methods neglect intrinsic flexibility of proteins by treating the native structure as a rigid molecule. Because different parts of proteins have different levels of flexibility, for example, exposed loop regions are usually more flexible than the core region of a protein structure, disagreement of a model to the native needs to be evaluated differently depending on the flexibility of residues in a protein.
resultsWe propose a score named FlexScore for comparing protein structures that consider flexibility of each residue in the native state of proteins. Flexibility information may be extracted from experiments such as NMR or molecular dynamics simulation. FlexScore considers an ensemble of conformations of a protein described as a multivariate Gaussian distribution of atomic displacements and compares a query computational model with the ensemble. We compare FlexScore with other commonly used structure similarity scores over various examples. FlexScore agrees with experts' intuitive assessment of computational models and provides information of practical usefulness of models. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: https://bitbucket.org/mjamroz/flexscore CONTACT: dkihara@purdue.edu SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
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.