ReviewBiomolecules2020
Comparative Assessment of Intrinsic Disorder Predictions with a Focus on Protein and Nucleic Acid-Binding Proteins.
Review in Biomolecules, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advances in the Application of Protein Language Modeling for Nucleic Acid Protein Binding Site Prediction.Genes · 2024Pooled it
- Modern resources for intrinsic disorder predictions: protein language models, deep learning, meta-servers, and databases.Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS · 2026Review
- Empirical Assessment of Sequence-Based Predictions of Intrinsically Disordered Regions Involved in Phase Separation.Biomolecules · 2025Article
- Assessment of Disordered Linker Predictions in the CAID2 Experiment.Biomolecules · 2024Article
- Protein intrinsically disordered regions have a non-random, modular architecture.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2023Article
- Microproteins-Discovery, structure, and function.Proteomics · 2023Review
- Tutorial: a guide for the selection of fast and accurate computational tools for the prediction of intrinsic disorder in proteins.Nature protocols · 2023Review
- Computational Prediction of Protein Intrinsically Disordered Region Related Interactions and Functions.Genes · 2023Review
- 1D2DSimScore: A novel method for comparing contacts in biomacromolecules and their complexes.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2023Article
- Comparative evaluation of AlphaFold2 and disorder predictors for prediction of intrinsic disorder, disorder content and fully disordered proteins.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2023Article
- Availability of web servers significantly boosts citations rates of bioinformatics methods for protein function and disorder prediction.Bioinformatics advances · 2023Article
- Alternative Mechanisms for DNA Engagement by BET Bromodomain-Containing Proteins.Biochemistry · 2022Article
- Compositional Bias of Intrinsically Disordered Proteins and Regions and Their Predictions.Biomolecules · 2022Article
- Article
- Complementarity of the residue-level protein function and structure predictions in human proteins.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2022Article
- Deep learning in prediction of intrinsic disorder in proteins.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2022Review
- flDPnn: Accurate intrinsic disorder prediction with putative propensities of disorder functions.Nature communications · 2021Article
- QUARTERplus: Accurate disorder predictions integrated with interpretable residue-level quality assessment scores.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
With over 60 disorder predictors, users need help navigating the predictor selection task. We review 28 surveys of disorder predictors, showing that only 11 include assessment of predictive performance. We identify and address a few drawbacks of these past surveys. To this end, we release a novel benchmark dataset with reduced similarity to the training sets of the considered predictors. We use this dataset to perform a first-of-its-kind comparative analysis that targets two large functional families of disordered proteins that interact with proteins and with nucleic acids. We show that limiting sequence similarity between the benchmark and the training datasets has a substantial impact on predictive performance. We also demonstrate that predictive quality is sensitive to the use of the well-annotated order and inclusion of the fully structured proteins in the benchmark datasets, both of which should be considered in future assessments. We identify three predictors that provide favorable results using the new benchmark set. While we find that VSL2B offers the most accurate and robust results overall, ESpritz-DisProt and SPOT-Disorder perform particularly well for disordered proteins. Moreover, we find that predictions for the disordered protein-binding proteins suffer low predictive quality compared to generic disordered proteins and the disordered nucleic acids-binding proteins. This can be explained by the high disorder content of the disordered protein-binding proteins, which makes it difficult for the current methods to accurately identify ordered regions in these proteins. This finding motivates the development of a new generation of methods that would target these difficult-to-predict disordered proteins. We also discuss resources that support users in collecting and identifying high-quality disorder predictions.
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.