Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38171930›Full record

ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2023

Comprehensive assessment of protein loop modeling programs on large-scale datasets: prediction accuracy and efficiency.

Tianyue Wang, Langcheng Wang, Xujun Zhang, Chao Shen, Odin Zhang, Jike Wang, Jialu Wu, Ruofan Jin, Donghao Zhou, Shicheng Chen and 7 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. 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

17 authors.

Tianyue WangCollege of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, Zhejiang, China.
Langcheng WangDepartment of Pathology, New York University Medical Center, 550 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016, USA.
Xujun ZhangCollege of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, Zhejiang, China.
Chao ShenCollege of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, Zhejiang, China.ORCID 0000-0003-2783-5529
Odin ZhangCollege of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, Zhejiang, China.
Jike WangCollege of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, Zhejiang, China.
Jialu WuCollege of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, Zhejiang, China.
Ruofan JinCollege of Life Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, Zhejiang, China.
Donghao ZhouShenzhen Institute of Advanced Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shenzhen 518055, Guangdong, China.
Shicheng ChenCollege of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, Zhejiang, China.
Liwei LiuAdvanced Computing and Storage Laboratory, Central Research Institute, 2012 Laboratories, Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., Shenzhen 518129, Guangdong, China.
Xiaorui WangState Key Laboratory of Quality Research in Chinese Medicines, Macau University of Science and Technology, Macao, China.ORCID 0000-0001-6893-2013
Chang-Yu HsiehCollege of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, Zhejiang, China.
Guangyong ChenZhejiang Lab, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 311121, Zhejiang, China.
Peichen PanCollege of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, Zhejiang, China.ORCID 0000-0003-1152-7759
Yu KangCollege of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, Zhejiang, China.ORCID 0000-0002-0999-8802
Tingjun HouCollege of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, Zhejiang, China.ORCID 0000-0001-7227-2580

Funding

Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities 226-2022-00220National Key Research and Development Program of China 2021YFE0206400National Natural Science Foundation of China 22220102001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Protein loops play a critical role in the dynamics of proteins and are essential for numerous biological functions, and various computational approaches to loop modeling have been proposed over the past decades. However, a comprehensive understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of each method is lacking. In this work, we constructed two high-quality datasets (i.e. the General dataset and the CASP dataset) and systematically evaluated the accuracy and efficiency of 13 commonly used loop modeling approaches from the perspective of loop lengths, protein classes and residue types. The results indicate that the knowledge-based method FREAD generally outperforms the other tested programs in most cases, but encountered challenges when predicting loops longer than 15 and 30 residues on the CASP and General datasets, respectively. The ab initio method Rosetta NGK demonstrated exceptional modeling accuracy for short loops with four to eight residues and achieved the highest success rate on the CASP dataset. The well-known AlphaFold2 and RoseTTAFold require more resources for better performance, but they exhibit promise for predicting loops longer than 16 and 30 residues in the CASP and General datasets. These observations can provide valuable insights for selecting suitable methods for specific loop modeling tasks and contribute to future advancements in the field.

Indexed as

ProteinsProtein ConformationProteinsAlphaFold2artificial intelligencedeep learningloop modelingprotein loop

Identifiers

PMID38171930
PMCPMC10764206

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.