ArticleProteins2018
Biological and functional relevance of CASP predictions.
Article in Proteins, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Computer-Aided Drug Discovery and Design: Recent Advances and Future Prospects.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2024Review
- Article
- ResiRole: residue-level functional site predictions to gauge the accuracies of protein structure prediction techniques.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2021Article
- Conservation of binding properties in protein models.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2021Article
- Article
- End-to-End Differentiable Learning of Protein Structure.Cell systems · 2019Article
- Biological and functional relevance of CASP predictions.Proteins · 2018Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Our goal is to answer the question: compared with experimental structures, how useful are predicted models for functional annotation? We assessed the functional utility of predicted models by comparing the performances of a suite of methods for functional characterization on the predictions and the experimental structures. We identified 28 sites in 25 protein targets to perform functional assessment. These 28 sites included nine sites with known ligand binding (holo-sites), nine sites that are expected or suggested by experimental authors for small molecule binding (apo-sites), and Ten sites containing important motifs, loops, or key residues with important disease-associated mutations. We evaluated the utility of the predictions by comparing their microenvironments to the experimental structures. Overall structural quality correlates with functional utility. However, the best-ranked predictions (global) may not have the best functional quality (local). Our assessment provides an ability to discriminate between predictions with high structural quality. When assessing ligand-binding sites, most prediction methods have higher performance on apo-sites than holo-sites. Some servers show consistently high performance for certain types of functional sites. Finally, many functional sites are associated with protein-protein interaction. We also analyzed biologically relevant features from the protein assemblies of two targets where the active site spanned the protein-protein interface. For the assembly targets, we find that the features in the models are mainly determined by the choice of template.
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.