Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31504181›Full record

ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2020

Analysis of several key factors influencing deep learning-based inter-residue contact prediction.

Tianqi Wu, Jie Hou, Badri Adhikari, Jianlin Cheng

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing 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

27 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Predicting the Structural Impact of Human Alternative Splicing.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023
    Article
  13. AlphaFold2 has more to learn about protein energy landscapes.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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.

Tianqi WuDepartment of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211, USA.
Jie HouDepartment of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211, USA.
Badri AdhikariDepartment of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Missouri, St. Louis, MO 63121, USA.
Jianlin ChengDepartment of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211, USA.

Funding

Integrated Prediction of Protein Struture at 1D, 2D and 3D LevelsR01GM093123 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-COLUMBIA · PI CHENG, JIANLIN · 2010 to 2023
$3.8M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM093123
6 · The paper itself

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

Computational BiologyDeep LearningAlgorithmsProteinsSequence AlignmentProteins

Identifiers

PMID31504181
PMCPMC7703788

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.