Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30418914›Full record

ArticleIEEE/ACM transactions on computational biology and bioinformatics

Two New Heuristic Methods for Protein Model Quality Assessment.

Wenbo Wang, Junlin Wang, Dong Xu, Yi Shang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in IEEE/ACM transactions on computational biology and bioinformatics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. AlphaFold model quality self-assessment improvement via deep graph learning.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. MUfoldQA_G: High-accuracy protein model QA via retraining and transformation.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2021
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Wenbo Wang
Junlin Wang
Dong Xu
Yi Shang

Funding

Development of MUFOLD for Building High-Accuracy Protein Structure ModelsR01GM100701 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-COLUMBIA · PI XU, DONG · 2012 to 2016
$1.4M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM100701
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Protein tertiary structure prediction is an important open challenge in bioinformatics and requires effective methods to accurately evaluate the quality of protein 3-D models generated computationally. Many quality assessment (QA) methods have been proposed over the past three decades. However, the accuracy or robustness is unsatisfactory for practical applications. In this paper, two new heuristic QA methods are proposed: MUfoldQA_S and MUfoldQA_C. The MUfoldQA_S is a quasi-single-model QA method that assesses the model quality based on the known protein structures with similar sequences. This algorithm can be directly applied to protein fragments without the necessity of building a full structural model. A BLOSUM-based heuristic is also introduced to help differentiate accurate templates from poor ones. In MUfoldQA_C, the ideas from MUfoldQA_S were combined with the consensus approach to create a multi-model QA method that could also utilize information from existing reference models and have demonstrated improved performance. Extensive experimental results of these two methods have shown significant improvement over existing methods. In addition, both methods have been blindly tested in the CASP12 world-wide competition in the protein structure prediction field and ranked as top performers in their respective categories.

Indexed as

Computational BiologyComputer HeuristicsModels, MolecularProtein Structure, TertiarySoftwareAlgorithmsProteinsProteins

Identifiers

PMID30418914
PMCPMC8988942

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.