Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31571280›Full record

ArticleProteins2019

Introducing "best single template" models as reference baseline for the Continuous Automated Model Evaluation (CAMEO).

Juergen Haas, Rafal Gumienny, Alessandro Barbato, Flavio Ackermann, Gerardo Tauriello, Martino Bertoni, Gabriel Studer, Anna Smolinski, Torsten Schwede

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proteins, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing 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

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. AI-Driven Deep Learning Techniques in Protein Structure Prediction.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Illuminating the "Twilight Zone": Advances in Difficult Protein Modeling.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Building Structural Models of a Whole Mycoplasma Cell.Journal of molecular biology · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. The Protein Data Bank Archive.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2021
    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

9 authors.

Juergen HaasComputational Structural Biology, University of Basel, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-3255-7773
Rafal GumiennyComputational Structural Biology, Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics, Switzerland.
Alessandro BarbatoComputational Structural Biology, Universitat Basel Department Biozentrum, Switzerland.
Flavio AckermannComputational Structural Biology, University of Basel, Switzerland.
Gerardo TaurielloComputational Structural Biology, University of Basel, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-5921-7007
Martino BertoniComputational Structural Biology, Universitat Basel Department Biozentrum, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-0720-1027
Gabriel StuderComputational Structural Biology, University of Basel, Switzerland.
Anna SmolinskiComputational Structural Biology, University of Basel, Switzerland.
Torsten SchwedeComputational Structural Biology, University of Basel, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-2715-335X

Funding

The Protein Structure Inittiative KnowledgebaseU01GM093324 · NIGMS · RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIV OF N.J. · PI BERMAN, HELEN M · 2010 to 2015
$12.9M
NIGMS NIH HHS U01 GM093324NIGMS NIH HHS U01 GM093324-01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Critical blind assessment of structure prediction techniques is crucial for the scientific community to establish the state of the art, identify bottlenecks, and guide future developments. In Critical Assessment of Techniques in Structure Prediction (CASP), human experts assess the performance of participating methods in relation to the difficulty of the prediction task in a biennial experiment on approximately 100 targets. Yet, the development of automated computational modeling methods requires more frequent evaluation cycles and larger sets of data. The "Continuous Automated Model EvaluatiOn (CAMEO)" platform complements CASP by conducting fully automated blind prediction evaluations based on the weekly pre-release of sequences of those structures, which are going to be published in the next release of the Protein Data Bank (PDB). Each week, CAMEO publishes benchmarking results for predictions corresponding to a set of about 20 targets collected during a 4-day prediction window. CAMEO benchmarking data are generated consistently for all methods at the same point in time, enabling developers to cross-validate their method's performance, and referring to their results in publications. Many successful participants of CASP have used CAMEO-either by directly benchmarking their methods within the system or by comparing their own performance to CAMEO reference data. CAMEO offers a variety of scores reflecting different aspects of structure modeling, for example, binding site accuracy, homo-oligomer interface quality, or accuracy of local model confidence estimates. By introducing the "bestSingleTemplate" method based on structure superpositions as a reference for the accuracy of 3D modeling predictions, CAMEO facilitates objective comparison of techniques and fosters the development of advanced methods.

Indexed as

Computational BiologyProtein ConformationSoftwareAlgorithmsBenchmarkingBinding SitesDatabases, ProteinHumansModels, MolecularProtein FoldingProteinsSequence Analysis, ProteinProteinsbenchmarkingCAMEOCASPcontinuous evaluationhomo-oligomer interface accuracyligand binding-site accuracymodel confidencemodel quality assessmentoligomeric assessmentprotein structure modelingprotein structure prediction

Identifiers

PMID31571280
PMCPMC8196401

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.