ArticleJournal of chemical theory and computation2018
Systematic Testing of Belief-Propagation Estimates for Absolute Free Energies in Atomistic Peptides and Proteins.
Article in Journal of chemical theory and computation, 2018. 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.
- The binding and specificity of chemokine binding proteins, through the lens of experiment and computation.Biomedical journal · 2022Review
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
Motivated by the extremely high computing costs associated with estimates of free energies for biological systems using molecular simulations, we further the exploration of existing "belief propagation" (BP) algorithms for fixed-backbone peptide and protein systems. The precalculation of pairwise interactions among discretized libraries of side-chain conformations, along with representation of protein side chains as nodes in a graphical model, enables direct application of the BP approach, which requires only ∼1 s of single-processor run time after the precalculation stage. We use a "loopy BP" algorithm, which can be seen as an approximate generalization of the transfer-matrix approach to highly connected (i.e., loopy) graphs, and it has previously been applied to protein calculations. We examine the application of loopy BP to several peptides as well as the binding site of the T4 lysozyme L99A mutant. The present study reports on (i) the comparison of the approximate BP results with estimates from unbiased estimators based on the Amber99SB force field; (ii) investigation of the effects of varying library size on BP predictions; and (iii) a theoretical discussion of the discretization effects that can arise in BP calculations. The data suggest that, despite their approximate nature, BP free-energy estimates are highly accurate-indeed, they never fall outside confidence intervals from unbiased estimators for the systems where independent results could be obtained. Furthermore, we find that libraries of sufficiently fine discretization (which diminish library-size sensitivity) can be obtained with standard computing resources in most cases. Altogether, the extremely low computing times and accurate results suggest the BP approach warrants further study.
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.