ArticleGenome biology2026
Benchmarking protein sequence and structure search methods for remote homology detection.
Article in Genome biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Benchmarking protein sequence and structure search methods for remote homology detection.Genome biology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundProtein sequence and structure similarity-based search is an important task, which underpins protein annotation, evolutionary analysis, large-scale functional inference, and the exploration of the protein "dark space". The rapid growth of sequence and predicted structure databases has spurred diverse search methods, yet their evaluation remains limited to fold-level similarity and inconsistent benchmarking protocols.
resultsWe present a comprehensive benchmark for protein sequence and structure search. Using this framework, we evaluate 14 representative methods spanning sequence alignment, structure alignment, and representation-based approaches across multiple biologically relevant scenarios. Our results show pronounced and context-dependent differences among methods. Structure alignment methods excel at detecting fold-level and geometric similarity, while representation-based searching approaches show advantages in capturing functional similarity under low sequence identity and robustness to predicted structures. Notably, all evaluated methods show limited effectiveness on intrinsically disordered proteins.
conclusionsThis benchmark establishes a standardized framework for evaluating protein similarity search methods, providing a practical resource for method selection and a foundation for the development of next-generation approaches capable of addressing diverse homology search challenges.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42458582What 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.