The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Single‐body residue‐level knowledge‐based energy score combined with sequence‐profile and secondary structure information for fold recognition
Abstract
An elaborate knowledge‐based energy function is designed for fold recognition. It is a residue‐level single‐body potential so that highly efficient dynamic programming method can be used for alignment optimization. It contains a backbone torsion term, a buried surface term, and a contact‐energy term. The energy score combined with sequence profile and secondary structure information leads to an algorithm called SPARKS (Sequence, secondary structure Profiles and Residue‐level Knowledge‐based energy Score) for fold recognition. Compared with the popular PSI‐BLAST, SPARKS is 21% more accurate in sequence‐sequence alignment in ProSup benchmark and 10%, 25%, and 20% more sensitive in detecting the family, superfamily, fold similarities in the Lindahl benchmark, respectively. Moreover, it is one of the best methods for sensitivity (the number of correctly recognized proteins), alignment accuracy (based on the MaxSub score), and specificity (the average number of correctly recognized proteins whose scores are higher than the first false positives) in LiveBench 7 among more than twenty servers of non‐consensus methods. The simple algorithm used in SPARKS has the potential for further improvement. This highly efficient method can be used for fold recognition on genomic scales. A web server is established for academic users on http://theory.med.buffalo.edu. Proteins 2004. © 2004 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
Improved tools for biological sequence comparison.
Pearson, W. R., & Lipman, D. J. (1988) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.85.8.2444 · Cited by 11,227
Comparative Protein Structure Modeling of Genes and Genomes
Martí-Renom, M. A., Stuart, A. C., Fiser, A., Sánchez, R., Melo, F., & Šali, A. (2000) · Annual Review of Biophysics and Biomolecular Structure · doi:10.1146/annurev.biophys.29.1.291 · Cited by 3,169
A new approach to protein fold recognition
Jones, D. T., Taylort, W. R., & Thornton, J. M. (1992) · Nature · doi:10.1038/358086a0 · Cited by 1,221
Zhou, H., & Zhou, Y. (2002) · Protein Science · doi:10.1110/ps.0217002 · Cited by 902
Self-citation
Cited by
Raptorx: Exploiting structure information for protein alignment by statistical inference
Peng, J., & Xu, J. (2011) · Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.23175 · Cited by 361
Liu, S., Zhang, C., Zhou, H., & Zhou, Y. (2004) · Proteins Structure Function and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.20019 · Cited by 193
Self-citationPhylogenomic analysis of the GIY-YIG nuclease superfamily
Dunin-Horkawicz, S., Feder, M., & Bujnicki, J. M. (2006) · BMC Genomics · doi:10.1186/1471-2164-7-98 · Cited by 133
Lee, S. J., Joo, K., Sim, S., Lee, J., Lee, I.-H., & Lee, J. (2022) · Molecules · doi:10.3390/molecules27123711 · Cited by 3
Metadata
- Authors
- Zhou, H., & Zhou, Y.
- Venue
- Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2004-04-02
- Volume
- 55
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1005-1013
- ISSN
- 0887-3585 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0134
- OpenAlex
- W2164843630
- Cited by
- 194
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 6.78
- 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.