Literature DB >> 31116374

AlphaFold at CASP13.

Mohammed AlQuraishi1,2.   

Abstract

SUMMARY: Computational prediction of protein structure from sequence is broadly viewed as a foundational problem of biochemistry and one of the most difficult challenges in bioinformatics. Once every two years the Critical Assessment of protein Structure Prediction (CASP) experiments are held to assess the state of the art in the field in a blind fashion, by presenting predictor groups with protein sequences whose structures have been solved but have not yet been made publicly available. The first CASP was organized in 1994, and the latest, CASP13, took place last December, when for the first time the industrial laboratory DeepMind entered the competition. DeepMind's entry, AlphaFold, placed first in the Free Modeling (FM) category, which assesses methods on their ability to predict novel protein folds (the Zhang group placed first in the Template-Based Modeling (TBM) category, which assess methods on predicting proteins whose folds are related to ones already in the Protein Data Bank.) DeepMind's success generated significant public interest. Their approach builds on two ideas developed in the academic community during the preceding decade: (i) the use of co-evolutionary analysis to map residue co-variation in protein sequence to physical contact in protein structure, and (ii) the application of deep neural networks to robustly identify patterns in protein sequence and co-evolutionary couplings and convert them into contact maps. In this Letter, we contextualize the significance of DeepMind's entry within the broader history of CASP, relate AlphaFold's methodological advances to prior work, and speculate on the future of this important problem.
© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31116374      PMCID: PMC6907002          DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btz422

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Bioinformatics        ISSN: 1367-4803            Impact factor:   6.937


  27 in total

1.  Protein structure prediction using Rosetta.

Authors:  Carol A Rohl; Charlie E M Strauss; Kira M S Misura; David Baker
Journal:  Methods Enzymol       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 1.600

2.  PSICOV: precise structural contact prediction using sparse inverse covariance estimation on large multiple sequence alignments.

Authors:  David T Jones; Daniel W A Buchan; Domenico Cozzetto; Massimiliano Pontil
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2011-11-17       Impact factor: 6.937

3.  Assessment of CASP7 predictions in the high accuracy template-based modeling category.

Authors:  Randy J Read; Gayatri Chavali
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2007

4.  Assessing the utility of coevolution-based residue-residue contact predictions in a sequence- and structure-rich era.

Authors:  Hetunandan Kamisetty; Sergey Ovchinnikov; David Baker
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2013-09-05       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 5.  Deep learning.

Authors:  Yann LeCun; Yoshua Bengio; Geoffrey Hinton
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2015-05-28       Impact factor: 49.962

6.  Distance-based protein folding powered by deep learning.

Authors:  Jinbo Xu
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2019-08-09       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  Learned protein embeddings for machine learning.

Authors:  Kevin K Yang; Zachary Wu; Claire N Bedbrook; Frances H Arnold
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2018-08-01       Impact factor: 6.937

8.  Statistical potentials extracted from protein structures: how accurate are they?

Authors:  P D Thomas; K A Dill
Journal:  J Mol Biol       Date:  1996-03-29       Impact factor: 5.469

9.  End-to-End Differentiable Learning of Protein Structure.

Authors:  Mohammed AlQuraishi
Journal:  Cell Syst       Date:  2019-04-17       Impact factor: 10.304

10.  Improved de novo structure prediction in CASP11 by incorporating coevolution information into Rosetta.

Authors:  Sergey Ovchinnikov; David E Kim; Ray Yu-Ruei Wang; Yuan Liu; Frank DiMaio; David Baker
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2016-02-24
View more
  44 in total

1.  The importance and future of biochemical engineering.

Authors:  Timothy A Whitehead; Scott Banta; William E Bentley; Michael J Betenbaugh; Christina Chan; Douglas S Clark; Corinne A Hoesli; Michael C Jewett; Beth Junker; Mattheos Koffas; Rashmi Kshirsagar; Amanda Lewis; Chien-Ting Li; Costas Maranas; E Terry Papoutsakis; Kristala L J Prather; Steffen Schaffer; Laura Segatori; Ian Wheeldon
Journal:  Biotechnol Bioeng       Date:  2020-05-29       Impact factor: 4.530

2.  High-accuracy protein structures by combining machine-learning with physics-based refinement.

Authors:  Lim Heo; Michael Feig
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2019-11-15

3.  Deep Mining from Omics Data.

Authors:  Abeer Alzubaidi; Jonathan Tepper
Journal:  Methods Mol Biol       Date:  2022

4.  Mycobacterium abscessus pathogenesis identified by phenogenomic analyses.

Authors:  Lucas Boeck; Sophie Burbaud; Marcin Skwark; Will H Pearson; Jasper Sangen; Andreas W Wuest; Eleanor K P Marshall; Aaron Weimann; Isobel Everall; Josephine M Bryant; Sony Malhotra; Bridget P Bannerman; Katrin Kierdorf; Tom L Blundell; Marc S Dionne; Julian Parkhill; R Andres Floto
Journal:  Nat Microbiol       Date:  2022-08-25       Impact factor: 30.964

Review 5.  Protein Function Analysis through Machine Learning.

Authors:  Chris Avery; John Patterson; Tyler Grear; Theodore Frater; Donald J Jacobs
Journal:  Biomolecules       Date:  2022-09-06

Review 6.  A review of mathematical representations of biomolecular data.

Authors:  Duc Duy Nguyen; Zixuan Cang; Guo-Wei Wei
Journal:  Phys Chem Chem Phys       Date:  2020-02-26       Impact factor: 3.676

7.  Assessing the accuracy of contact predictions in CASP13.

Authors:  Rojan Shrestha; Eduardo Fajardo; Nelson Gil; Krzysztof Fidelis; Andriy Kryshtafovych; Bohdan Monastyrskyy; Andras Fiser
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2019-10-24

8.  Benchmarking of structure refinement methods for protein complex models.

Authors:  Jacob Verburgt; Daisuke Kihara
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2021-08-03

9.  FRAGSITE: A Fragment-Based Approach for Virtual Ligand Screening.

Authors:  Hongyi Zhou; Hongnan Cao; Jeffrey Skolnick
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2021-03-16       Impact factor: 4.956

10.  Genome-scale metabolic modeling reveals key features of a minimal gene set.

Authors:  Jean-Christophe Lachance; Dominick Matteau; Joëlle Brodeur; Colton J Lloyd; Nathan Mih; Zachary A King; Thomas F Knight; Adam M Feist; Jonathan M Monk; Bernhard O Palsson; Pierre-Étienne Jacques; Sébastien Rodrigue
Journal:  Mol Syst Biol       Date:  2021-07       Impact factor: 11.429

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.