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
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.
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
An improved protein decoy set for testing energy functions for protein structure prediction
Tsai, J., Bonneau, R., Morozov, A. V., Kuhlman, B., Rohl, C. A., & Baker, D. (2003) · Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.10454 · Cited by 158
Self-citation
Cited by
TM-align: a protein structure alignment algorithm based on the TM-score
Zhang, Y. (2005) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gki524 · Cited by 3,774
Protein structure prediction and analysis using the Robetta server
Kim, D. E., Chivian, D., & Baker, D. (2004) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkh468 · Cited by 2,111
Self-citationProtein 3D Structure Computed from Evolutionary Sequence Variation
Marks, D. S., Colwell, L. J., Sheridan, R., Hopf, T. A., Pagnani, A., Zecchina, R., & Sander, C. (2011) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0028766 · Cited by 1,144
Porter: a new, accurate server for protein secondary structure prediction
Pollastri, G., & McLysaght, A. (2005) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/bti203 · Cited by 469
Multipass membrane protein structure prediction using Rosetta
Yarov‐Yarovoy, V., Schonbrun, J., & Baker, D. (2006) · Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.20817 · Cited by 323
Self-citation
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
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.