The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Alignments grow, secondary structure prediction improves
Abstract
Using information from sequence alignments significantly improves protein secondary structure prediction. Typically, more divergent profiles yield better predictions. Recently, various groups have shown that accuracy can be improved significantly by using PSI‐BLAST profiles to develop new prediction methods. Here, we focused on the influences of various alignment strategies on two 8‐year‐old PHD methods. The following results stood out. (i) PHD using pairwise alignments predicts about 72% of all residues correctly in one of the three states: helix, strand, and other. Using larger databases and PSI‐BLAST raised accuracy to 75%. (ii) More than 60% of the improvement originated from the growth of current sequence databases; about 20% resulted from detailed changes in the alignment procedure (substitution matrix, thresholds, and gap penalties). Another 20% of the improvement resulted from carefully using iterated PSI‐BLAST searches. (iii) It is of interest that we failed to improve prediction accuracy further when attempting to refine the alignment by dynamic programming (MaxHom and ClustalW). (iv) Improvement through family growth appears to saturate at some point. However, most families have not reached this saturation. Hence, we anticipate that prediction accuracy will continue to rise with database growth. Proteins 2002;46:197–205. © 2001 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Kabsch, W., & Sander, C. (1983) · Biopolymers · doi:10.1002/bip.360221211 · Cited by 15,320
Predicting coiled coils from protein sequences.
Lupas, A., Van Dyke, M., & Stock, J. (1991) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.252.5009.1162 · Cited by 3,953
The relation between the divergence of sequence and structure in proteins.
Chothia, C., & Lesk, A. M. (1986) · The EMBO Journal · doi:10.1002/j.1460-2075.1986.tb04288.x · Cited by 2,458
Cited by
Rost, B., Yachdav, G., & Liu, J. (2004) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkh377 · Cited by 1,453
Self-citationComparing two K-category assignments by a K-category correlation coefficient
Gorodkin, J. (2004) · Computational Biology and Chemistry · doi:10.1016/j.compbiolchem.2004.09.006 · Cited by 545
Metadata
- Authors
- Przybylski, D., & Rost, B.
- Venue
- Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2001-12-06
- Volume
- 46
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 197-205
- ISSN
- 0887-3585 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0134
- OpenAlex
- W2072649575
- Cited by
- 206
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 4.67
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Alignments grow, secondary structure prediction improves. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/prot.10029
- The paper
- Przybylski, D., & Rost, B. (2002). Alignments grow, secondary structure prediction improves. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics. https://doi.org/10.1002/prot.10029
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.