ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2020
Analysis of several key factors influencing deep learning-based inter-residue contact prediction.
Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 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
27 citing papers in PubMed.
- Proton-coupled alternating access in a versatile mycobacterial Spns drug transporter.Research square · 2026Article
- Proton-coupled alternating access in a versatile mycobacterial Spns drug transporter.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- NEFFy: a versatile tool for computing the number of effective sequences.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Assessment of Nucleic Acid Structure Prediction in CASP16.Proteins · 2026Article
- Predicting the structural impact of human alternative splicing.Genome biology · 2025Article
- Modeling protein conformational ensembles by guiding AlphaFold2 with Double Electron Electron Resonance (DEER) distance distributions.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Improving Protein Secondary Structure Prediction by Deep Language Models and Transformer Networks.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2025Article
- The success rate of processed predicted models in molecular replacement: implications for experimental phasing in the AlphaFold era.Acta crystallographica. Section D, Structural biology · 2024Article
- SymProFold: Structural prediction of symmetrical biological assemblies.Nature communications · 2024Article
- AlphaFold predictions of fold-switched conformations are driven by structure memorization.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Article
- Predicting the Structural Impact of Human Alternative Splicing.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023Article
- AlphaFold2 has more to learn about protein energy landscapes.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023Article
- Tertiary structure assessment at CASP15.Proteins · 2023Article
- The impact of AI-based modeling on the accuracy of protein assembly prediction: Insights from CASP15.Proteins · 2023Article
- The Impact of AI-Based Modeling on the Accuracy of Protein Assembly Prediction: Insights from CASP15.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023Article
- Comprehensive computational analysis of the SRK-SP11 molecular interaction underlying self-incompatibility in Brassicaceae using improved structure prediction for cysteine-rich proteins.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2023Article
- Deep learning of protein sequence design of protein-protein interactions.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2023Article
- Many dissimilar NusG protein domains switch between α-helix and β-sheet folds.Nature communications · 2022Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
motivationDeep learning has become the dominant technology for protein contact prediction. However, the factors that affect the performance of deep learning in contact prediction have not been systematically investigated.
resultsWe analyzed the results of our three deep learning-based contact prediction methods (MULTICOM-CLUSTER, MULTICOM-CONSTRUCT and MULTICOM-NOVEL) in the CASP13 experiment and identified several key factors [i.e. deep learning technique, multiple sequence alignment (MSA), distance distribution prediction and domain-based contact integration] that influenced the contact prediction accuracy. We compared our convolutional neural network (CNN)-based contact prediction methods with three coevolution-based methods on 75 CASP13 targets consisting of 108 domains. We demonstrated that the CNN-based multi-distance approach was able to leverage global coevolutionary coupling patterns comprised of multiple correlated contacts for more accurate contact prediction than the local coevolution-based methods, leading to a substantial increase of precision by 19.2 percentage points. We also tested different alignment methods and domain-based contact prediction with the deep learning contact predictors. The comparison of the three methods showed deeper sequence alignments and the integration of domain-based contact prediction with the full-length contact prediction improved the performance of contact prediction. Moreover, we demonstrated that the domain-based contact prediction based on a novel ab initio approach of parsing domains from MSAs alone without using known protein structures was a simple, fast approach to improve contact prediction. Finally, we showed that predicting the distribution of inter-residue distances in multiple distance intervals could capture more structural information and improve binary contact prediction. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: https://github.com/multicom-toolbox/DNCON2/. 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.