Literature DB >> 9485500

Competitive assessment of protein fold recognition and alignment accuracy.

M Levitt1.   

Abstract

The predictions made for fold recognition and modeling accuracy at the 1996 Critical Assessment of Structure Prediction meeting (CASP2) were assessed to discover which groups did best. With 32 groups making a total of 369 predictions, it was necessary to use simple criteria for distinguishing between the entries. By focusing on the predictors' ability to use the sequence of the unknown target structure to recognize the target fold from a database of known folds and also on the quality of the model judged by the accuracy of the predicted alignment, it is easy to determine the best predictions for a given target. Assessing overall performance of the predictors on all the targets is much more difficult and use was made of weighted averages of fold recognition and alignment accuracy with and without normalization for target difficulty. By plotting these results in two dimensions the winning groups stand out, allowing readers to focus their attention on the most promising methods. When the present results are compared with the results of the earlier CASP1 meeting, held in 1994, it is clear that threading predictions have progressed dramatically. For this assessor, the strongest lesson learned is that subjectivity is pervasive and affects us all. It is abundantly clear that the blind predictions made at CASP are essential if progress is to be made in predicting protein structure.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9485500     DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0134(1997)1+<92::aid-prot13>3.3.co;2-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proteins        ISSN: 0887-3585


  13 in total

1.  Use of residue pairs in protein sequence-sequence and sequence-structure alignments.

Authors:  J Jung; B Lee
Journal:  Protein Sci       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 6.725

2.  Enhanced protein fold recognition using secondary structure information from NMR.

Authors:  D J Ayers; P R Gooley; A Widmer-Cooper; A E Torda
Journal:  Protein Sci       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 6.725

3.  Feasibility in the inverse protein folding protocol.

Authors:  M Ota; K Nishikawa
Journal:  Protein Sci       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 6.725

4.  Finding weak similarities between proteins by sequence profile comparison.

Authors:  Anna R Panchenko
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2003-01-15       Impact factor: 16.971

5.  Conservation of structure and function among tyrosine recombinases: homology-based modeling of the lambda integrase core-binding domain.

Authors:  Brian M Swalla; Richard I Gumport; Jeffrey F Gardner
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2003-02-01       Impact factor: 16.971

6.  Exploring the sequence-structure protein landscape in the glycosyltransferase family.

Authors:  Ziding Zhang; Sunil Kochhar; Martin Grigorov
Journal:  Protein Sci       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 6.725

7.  Alignment of protein sequences by their profiles.

Authors:  Marc A Marti-Renom; M S Madhusudhan; Andrej Sali
Journal:  Protein Sci       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 6.725

8.  Descriptor-based protein remote homology identification.

Authors:  Ziding Zhang; Sunil Kochhar; Martin G Grigorov
Journal:  Protein Sci       Date:  2005-01-04       Impact factor: 6.725

9.  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

10.  A standard variation file format for human genome sequences.

Authors:  Martin G Reese; Barry Moore; Colin Batchelor; Fidel Salas; Fiona Cunningham; Gabor T Marth; Lincoln Stein; Paul Flicek; Mark Yandell; Karen Eilbeck
Journal:  Genome Biol       Date:  2010-08-26       Impact factor: 13.583

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.