ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2017
Forecasting residue-residue contact prediction accuracy.
Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- StructureDistiller: Structural relevance scoring identifies the most informative entries of a contact map.Scientific reports · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
motivationApart from meta-predictors, most of today's methods for residue-residue contact prediction are based entirely on Direct Coupling Analysis (DCA) of correlated mutations in multiple sequence alignments (MSAs). These methods are on average ∼40% correct for the 100 strongest predicted contacts in each protein. The end-user who works on a single protein of interest will not know if predictions are either much more or much less correct than 40%, which is especially a problem if contacts are predicted to steer experimental research on that protein.
resultsWe designed a regression model that forecasts the accuracy of residue-residue contact prediction for individual proteins with an average error of 7 percentage points. Contacts were predicted with two DCA methods (gplmDCA and PSICOV). The models were built on parameters that describe the MSA, the predicted secondary structure, the predicted solvent accessibility and the contact prediction scores for the target protein. Results show that our models can be also applied to the meta-methods, which was tested on RaptorX. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: All data and scripts are available from http://comprec-lin.iiar.pwr.edu.pl/dcaQ/. CONTACT: malgorzata.kotulska@pwr.edu.pl. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
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.