The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Hidden Markov models that use predicted local structure for fold recognition: Alphabets of backbone geometry
Abstract
An important problem in computational biology is predicting the structure of the large number of putative proteins discovered by genome sequencing projects. Fold‐recognition methods attempt to solve the problem by relating the target proteins to known structures, searching for template proteins homologous to the target. Remote homologs that may have significant structural similarity are often not detectable by sequence similarities alone. To address this, we incorporated predicted local structure, a generalization of secondary structure, into two‐track profile hidden Markov models (HMM s). We did not rely on a simple helix‐strand‐coil definition of secondary structure, but experimented with a variety of local structure descriptions, following a principled protocol to establish which descriptions are most useful for improving fold recognition and alignment quality. On a test set of 1298 nonhomologous proteins, HMM s incorporating a 3‐letter STRIDE alphabet improved fold recognition accuracy by 15% over amino‐acid‐only HMM s and 23% over PSI‐BLAST, measured by ROC‐65 numbers. We compared two‐track HMM s to amino‐acid‐only HMM s on a difficult alignment test set of 200 protein pairs (structurally similar with 3–24% sequence identity). HMM s with a 6‐letter STRIDE secondary track improved alignment quality by 62%, relative to DALI structural alignments, while HMM s with an STR track (an expanded DSSP alphabet that subdivides strands into six states) improved by 40% relative to CE. Proteins 2003;51:504–514. © 2003 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
Self-organized formation of topologically correct feature maps
Kohonen, T. (1982) · Biological Cybernetics · doi:10.1007/bf00337288 · Cited by 9,529
Protein Structure Comparison by Alignment of Distance Matrices
Holm, L., & Sander, C. (1993) · Journal of Molecular Biology · doi:10.1006/jmbi.1993.1489 · Cited by 3,984 · cited 3×
“These alignments each have a “master” belonging to FSSP’s representative set (none of which share greater than 25% sequence identity) and a collection of “slaves” that are structurally aligned to the master by DALI.(35,42)”
Background
Cited by
Comparative protein structure modeling using MODELLER
Webb, B., & Sali, A. (2016) · Current Protocols in Protein Science · doi:10.1002/cpps.20 · Cited by 730
“…tables dependent on structural features such as solvent exposure, secondary structure type, and hydrogen-bonding properties (Shi et al., 2001; Karchin et al., 2003; McGuffin and Jones, 2003; Zhou and Zhou, 2005) or on statistical potentials for residue interactions implied by the alignment…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialTAFPred: Torsion Angle Fluctuations Prediction from Protein Sequences
Kabir, M. W. U., Alawad, D. M., Mishra, A., & Hoque, M. T. (2023) · Biology · doi:10.3390/biology12071020 · Cited by 5
Hasan, A. K. M. M., Ahmed, A. Y., Mahbub, S., Rahman, M. S., & Bayzid, M. S. (2023) · Bioinformatics Advances · doi:10.1093/bioadv/vbad042 · Cited by 5
Metadata
- Authors
- Karchin, R., Cline, M., Mandel‐Gutfreund, Y., & Karplus, K.
- Venue
- Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2003-04-22
- Volume
- 51
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 504-514
- ISSN
- 0887-3585 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0134
- OpenAlex
- W2105801262
- Cited by
- 201
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 6.11
- 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: Hidden Markov models that use predicted local structure for fold recognition: Alphabets of backbone geometry. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/prot.10369
- The paper
- Karchin, R., Cline, M., Mandel‐Gutfreund, Y., & Karplus, K. (2003). Hidden Markov models that use predicted local structure for fold recognition: Alphabets of backbone geometry. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics. https://doi.org/10.1002/prot.10369
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.