ArticlePloS one2017
Critical Features of Fragment Libraries for Protein Structure Prediction.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ab Initio Modelling of the Structure of ToxA-like and MAX Fungal Effector Proteins.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Assigning secondary structure in proteins using AI.Journal of molecular modeling · 2021Article
- Protein Structure Prediction: Conventional and Deep Learning Perspectives.The protein journal · 2021Review
- Enhancing fragment-based protein structure prediction by customising fragment cardinality according to local secondary structure.BMC bioinformatics · 2020Article
- Review
- Computational reconstruction of atomistic protein structures from coarse-grained models.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2020Review
- Improved fragment-based protein structure prediction by redesign of search heuristics.Scientific reports · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of fragment libraries is a popular approach among protein structure prediction methods and has proven to substantially improve the quality of predicted structures. However, some vital aspects of a fragment library that influence the accuracy of modeling a native structure remain to be determined. This study investigates some of these features. Particularly, we analyze the effect of using secondary structure prediction guiding fragments selection, different fragments sizes and the effect of structural clustering of fragments within libraries. To have a clearer view of how these factors affect protein structure prediction, we isolated the process of model building by fragment assembly from some common limitations associated with prediction methods, e.g., imprecise energy functions and optimization algorithms, by employing an exact structure-based objective function under a greedy algorithm. Our results indicate that shorter fragments reproduce the native structure more accurately than the longer. Libraries composed of multiple fragment lengths generate even better structures, where longer fragments show to be more useful at the beginning of the simulations. The use of many different fragment sizes shows little improvement when compared to predictions carried out with libraries that comprise only three different fragment sizes. Models obtained from libraries built using only sequence similarity are, on average, better than those built with a secondary structure prediction bias. However, we found that the use of secondary structure prediction allows greater reduction of the search space, which is invaluable for prediction methods. The results of this study can be critical guidelines for the use of fragment libraries in protein structure prediction.
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.