ArticleProteins2018
Protein contact prediction by integrating deep multiple sequence alignments, coevolution and machine learning.
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.
- DeepFold: enhancing protein structure prediction through optimized loss functions, improved template features, and re-optimized energy function.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2023Article
- Protein Structure Refinement Using Multi-Objective Particle Swarm Optimization with Decomposition Strategy.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Article
- High-accuracy protein structures by combining machine-learning with physics-based refinement.Proteins · 2020Article
- Assessing the accuracy of contact predictions in CASP13.Proteins · 2019Article
- Driven to near-experimental accuracy by refinement via molecular dynamics simulations.Proteins · 2019Article
- Combining Evolutionary Covariance and NMR Data for Protein Structure Determination.Methods in enzymology · 2019Article
- ComplexContact: a web server for inter-protein contact prediction using deep learning.Nucleic acids research · 2018Article
- Combined approaches from physics, statistics, and computer science forF1000Research · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In this study, we report the evaluation of the residue-residue contacts predicted by our three different methods in the CASP12 experiment, focusing on studying the impact of multiple sequence alignment, residue coevolution, and machine learning on contact prediction. The first method (MULTICOM-NOVEL) uses only traditional features (sequence profile, secondary structure, and solvent accessibility) with deep learning to predict contacts and serves as a baseline. The second method (MULTICOM-CONSTRUCT) uses our new alignment algorithm to generate deep multiple sequence alignment to derive coevolution-based features, which are integrated by a neural network method to predict contacts. The third method (MULTICOM-CLUSTER) is a consensus combination of the predictions of the first two methods. We evaluated our methods on 94 CASP12 domains. On a subset of 38 free-modeling domains, our methods achieved an average precision of up to 41.7% for top L/5 long-range contact predictions. The comparison of the three methods shows that the quality and effective depth of multiple sequence alignments, coevolution-based features, and machine learning integration of coevolution-based features and traditional features drive the quality of predicted protein contacts. On the full CASP12 dataset, the coevolution-based features alone can improve the average precision from 28.4% to 41.6%, and the machine learning integration of all the features further raises the precision to 56.3%, when top L/5 predicted long-range contacts are evaluated. And the correlation between the precision of contact prediction and the logarithm of the number of effective sequences in alignments is 0.66.
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.