ArticleProteins2017
Improving prediction of helix-helix packing in membrane proteins using predicted contact numbers as restraints.
Article in Proteins, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Multitask Deep-Learning Method for Predicting Membrane Associations and Secondary Structures of Proteins.Journal of proteome research · 2021Article
- α-Helical protein absorption at post-traumatic epileptic foci monitored by Fourier transform infrared mapping.Journal of biosciences · 2020Article
- Interfaces Between Alpha-helical Integral Membrane Proteins: Characterization, Prediction, and Docking.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2019Article
- Finding the needle in the haystack: towards solving the protein-folding problem computationally.Critical reviews in biochemistry and molecular biology · 2018Review
- Predicting the Functional Impact of KCNQ1 Variants of Unknown Significance.Circulation. Cardiovascular genetics · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
One of the challenging problems in tertiary structure prediction of helical membrane proteins (HMPs) is the determination of rotation of α-helices around the helix normal. Incorrect prediction of helix rotations substantially disrupts native residue-residue contacts while inducing only a relatively small effect on the overall fold. We previously developed a method for predicting residue contact numbers (CNs), which measure the local packing density of residues within the protein tertiary structure. In this study, we tested the idea of incorporating predicted CNs as restraints to guide the sampling of helix rotation. For a benchmark set of 15 HMPs with simple to rather complicated folds, the average contact recovery (CR) of best-sampled models was improved for all targets, the likelihood of sampling models with CR greater than 20% was increased for 13 targets, and the average RMSD100 of best-sampled models was improved for 12 targets. This study demonstrated that explicit incorporation of CNs as restraints improves the prediction of helix-helix packing. Proteins 2017; 85:1212-1221. © 2017 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.