Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30823390›Full record

ArticleMolecules (Basel, Switzerland)2019

Graph-Based Community Detection for Decoy Selection in Template-Free Protein Structure Prediction.

Kazi Lutful Kabir, Liban Hassan, Zahra Rajabi, Nasrin Akhter, Amarda Shehu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecules (Basel, Switzerland), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

5 authors.

Kazi Lutful KabirDepartment of Computer Science, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030, USA. kkabir@gmu.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-4021-6618
Liban HassanDepartment of Computer Science, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030, USA. lhassan1@gmu.edu.
Zahra RajabiDepartment of Information Sciences and Technology, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030, USA. zrajabi@gmu.edu.
Nasrin AkhterDepartment of Computer Science, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030, USA. nakhter3@gmu.edu.
Amarda ShehuDepartment of Computer Science, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030, USA. amarda@gmu.edu.

Funding

National Science Foundation 11763233Thomas F. and Kate Miller Jeffress Memorial Trust No Award Number
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Significant efforts in wet and dry laboratories are devoted to resolving molecular structures. In particular, computational methods can now compute thousands of tertiary structures that populate the structure space of a protein molecule of interest. These advances are now allowing us to turn our attention to analysis methodologies that are able to organize the computed structures in order to highlight functionally relevant structural states. In this paper, we propose a methodology that leverages community detection methods, designed originally to detect communities in social networks, to organize computationally probed protein structure spaces. We report a principled comparison of such methods along several metrics on proteins of diverse folds and lengths. We present a rigorous evaluation in the context of decoy selection in template-free protein structure prediction. The results make the case that network-based community detection methods warrant further investigation to advance analysis of protein structure spaces for automated selection of functionally relevant structures.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsComputational BiologyModels, MolecularProteinsProtein ConformationProteinscommunity detectiondecoy selectionnearest-neighbor graphprotein structure spacetemplate-free protein structure prediction

Identifiers

PMID30823390
PMCPMC6429114

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.