ArticleBMC bioinformatics2017
MQAPRank: improved global protein model quality assessment by learning-to-rank.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2017. 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.
- Probabilistic divergence of a template-based modelling methodology from the ideal protocol.Journal of molecular modeling · 2021Article
- MUfoldQA_G: High-accuracy protein model QA via retraining and transformation.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2021Article
- T4SE-XGB: Interpretable Sequence-Based Prediction of Type IV Secreted Effectors Using eXtreme Gradient Boosting Algorithm.Frontiers in microbiology · 2020Article
- A simple neural network implementation of generalized solvation free energy for assessment of protein structural models.RSC advances · 2019Article
- PSICA: a fast and accurate web service for protein model quality analysis.Nucleic acids research · 2019Article
- Two New Heuristic Methods for Protein Model Quality Assessment.IEEE/ACM transactions on computational biology and bioinformaticsArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProtein structure prediction has achieved a lot of progress during the last few decades and a greater number of models for a certain sequence can be predicted. Consequently, assessing the qualities of predicted protein models in perspective is one of the key components of successful protein structure prediction. Over the past years, a number of methods have been developed to address this issue, which could be roughly divided into three categories: single methods, quasi-single methods and clustering (or consensus) methods. Although these methods achieve much success at different levels, accurate protein model quality assessment is still an open problem.
resultsHere, we present the MQAPRank, a global protein model quality assessment program based on learning-to-rank. The MQAPRank first sorts the decoy models by using single method based on learning-to-rank algorithm to indicate their relative qualities for the target protein. And then it takes the first five models as references to predict the qualities of other models by using average GDT_TS scores between reference models and other models. Benchmarked on CASP11 and 3DRobot datasets, the MQAPRank achieved better performances than other leading protein model quality assessment methods. Recently, the MQAPRank participated in the CASP12 under the group name FDUBio and achieved the state-of-the-art performances.
conclusionsThe MQAPRank provides a convenient and powerful tool for protein model quality assessment with the state-of-the-art performances, it is useful for protein structure prediction and model quality assessment usages.
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.