ArticleJournal of computer-aided molecular design2016
A comparison of different functions for predicted protein model quality assessment.
Article in Journal of computer-aided molecular design, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In protein structure prediction, a considerable number of models are usually produced by either the Template-Based Method (TBM) or the ab initio prediction. The purpose of this study is to find the critical parameter in assessing the quality of the predicted models. A non-redundant template library was developed and 138 target sequences were modeled. The target sequences were all distant from the proteins in the template library and were aligned with template library proteins on the basis of the transformation matrix. The quality of each model was first assessed with QMEAN and its six parameters, which are C_β interaction energy (C_beta), all-atom pairwise energy (PE), solvation energy (SE), torsion angle energy (TAE), secondary structure agreement (SSA), and solvent accessibility agreement (SAE). Finally, the alignment score (score) was also used to assess the quality of model. Hence, a total of eight parameters (i.e., QMEAN, C_beta, PE, SE, TAE, SSA, SAE, score) were independently used to assess the quality of each model. The results indicate that SSA is the best parameter to estimate the quality of the model.
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.