Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 181

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Rosetta predictions in CASP5: Successes, failures, and prospects for complete automation

Bradley, Philip, Chivian, Dylan, Meiler, Jens, Misura, Kira M.S., Rohl, Carol A., Schief, William R., Wedemeyer, William J., Schueler-Furman, Ora, Murphy, Paul, Schonbrun, Jack, Strauss, Charles E.M., Baker, David·2003·Proteins: Structure, Function, and Genetics

Abstract

We describe predictions of the structures of CASP5 targets using Rosetta. The Rosetta fragment insertion protocol was used to generate models for entire target domains without detectable sequence similarity to a protein of known structure and to build long loop insertions (and N-and C-terminal extensions) in cases where a structural template was available. Encouraging results were obtained both for the de novo predictions and for the long loop insertions; we describe here the successes as well as the failures in the context of current efforts to improve the Rosetta method. In particular, de novo predictions failed for large proteins that were incorrectly parsed into domains and for topologically complex (high contact order) proteins with swapping of segments between domains. However, for the remaining targets, at least one of the five submitted models had a long fragment with significant similarity to the native structure. A fully automated version of the CASP5 protocol produced results that were comparable to the human-assisted predictions for most of the targets, suggesting that automated genomic-scale, de novo protein structure prediction may soon be worthwhile. For the three targets where the human-assisted predictions were significantly closer to the native structure, we identify the steps that remain to be automated.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/prot.10552

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 181

Metadata

Authors
Bradley, P., Chivian, D., Meiler, J., Misura, K. M. S., Rohl, C. A., Schief, W. R., Wedemeyer, W. J., Schueler-Furman, O., Murphy, P., Schonbrun, J., Strauss, C. E. M., & Baker, D.
Venue
Proteins: Structure, Function, and Genetics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2003
Volume
53
Issue
S6
Pages
457-468
ISSN
  • 0887-3585 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0134
OpenAlex
W2091194233
Cited by
181
References
1
FWCI
7.72
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: Rosetta predictions in CASP5: Successes, failures, and prospects for complete automation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/prot.10552
The paper
Bradley, P., Chivian, D., Meiler, J., Misura, K. M. S., Rohl, C. A., Schief, W. R., Wedemeyer, W. J., Schueler-Furman, O., Murphy, P., Schonbrun, J., Strauss, C. E. M., & Baker, D. (2003). Rosetta predictions in CASP5: Successes, failures, and prospects for complete automation. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Genetics. https://doi.org/10.1002/prot.10552

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.