Literature DB >> 9135979

Meeting review: the Second meeting on the Critical Assessment of Techniques for Protein Structure Prediction (CASP2), Asilomar, California, December 13-16, 1996.

R L Dunbrack1, D L Gerloff, M Bower, X Chen, O Lichtarge, F E Cohen.   

Abstract

In most fields of scientific endeavor, the outcomes of important experiments are not always known before the experiments are performed. But in protein structure prediction, algorithms are usually developed and tested in situations where the answers are known. In December 1996, the Second Meeting on the Critical Assessment of Techniques for Protein Structure Prediction (CASP2) was held in Asilomar, California to rectify this situation: protein sequences were provided in advance for which the experimental structure had not yet been published. Over 70 research groups provided bona fide predictions on 42 targets in four categories: comparative or 'homology' modeling, fold recognition or 'threading', ab initio structure predictions, and docking predictions. Since the previous CASP meeting in 1994, the role of fold recognition in structure prediction has increased enormously with the largest number of groups participating in this category. In this review, we highlight some of the important developments and give at least a qualitative sense of what kind of methods produced some of the better predictions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9135979     DOI: 10.1016/S1359-0278(97)00011-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Fold Des        ISSN: 1359-0278


  10 in total

1.  MODBASE, a database of annotated comparative protein structure models.

Authors:  R Sánchez; U Pieper; N Mirković; P I de Bakker; E Wittenstein; A Sali
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2000-01-01       Impact factor: 16.971

Review 2.  Folding funnels, binding funnels, and protein function.

Authors:  C J Tsai; S Kumar; B Ma; R Nussinov
Journal:  Protein Sci       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 6.725

3.  A systematic study of low-resolution recognition in protein--protein complexes.

Authors:  I A Vakser; O G Matar; C F Lam
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1999-07-20       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Improvement of comparative modeling by the application of conserved motifs amongst distantly related proteins as additional restraints.

Authors:  Saikat Chakrabarti; Jaisurya John; Ramanathan Sowdhamini
Journal:  J Mol Model       Date:  2003-12-23       Impact factor: 1.810

5.  Exploring classification strategies with the CoEPrA 2006 contest.

Authors:  Ozgur Demir-Kavuk; Henning Riedesel; Ernst-Walter Knapp
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2010-01-22       Impact factor: 6.937

6.  Genome annotation assessment in Drosophila melanogaster.

Authors:  M G Reese; G Hartzell; N L Harris; U Ohler; J F Abril; S E Lewis
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 9.043

Review 7.  Conformational dynamics of the molecular chaperone Hsp90.

Authors:  Kristin A Krukenberg; Timothy O Street; Laura A Lavery; David A Agard
Journal:  Q Rev Biophys       Date:  2011-03-18       Impact factor: 5.318

8.  Assessment of protein assembly prediction in CASP13.

Authors:  Dmytro Guzenko; Aleix Lafita; Bohdan Monastyrskyy; Andriy Kryshtafovych; Jose M Duarte
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2019-08-27

9.  Large-scale protein structure modeling of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae genome.

Authors:  R Sánchez; A Sali
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1998-11-10       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 10.  EGASP: the human ENCODE Genome Annotation Assessment Project.

Authors:  Roderic Guigó; Paul Flicek; Josep F Abril; Alexandre Reymond; Julien Lagarde; France Denoeud; Stylianos Antonarakis; Michael Ashburner; Vladimir B Bajic; Ewan Birney; Robert Castelo; Eduardo Eyras; Catherine Ucla; Thomas R Gingeras; Jennifer Harrow; Tim Hubbard; Suzanna E Lewis; Martin G Reese
Journal:  Genome Biol       Date:  2006-08-07       Impact factor: 13.583

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.