Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 411

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Exploring the extremes of sequence/structure space with ensemble fold recognition in the program Phyre

Bennett‐Lovsey, Riccardo M., Herbert, Alex D., Sternberg, Michael J. E., Kelley, Lawrence A.·2008·Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics

Abstract

Structural and functional annotation of the large and growing database of genomic sequences is a major problem in modern biology. Protein structure prediction by detecting remote homology to known structures is a well‐established and successful annotation technique. However, the broad spectrum of evolutionary change that accompanies the divergence of close homologues to become remote homologues cannot easily be captured with a single algorithm. Recent advances to tackle this problem have involved the use of multiple predictive algorithms available on the Internet. Here we demonstrate how such ensembles of predictors can be designed in‐house under controlled conditions and permit significant improvements in recognition by using a concept taken from protein loop energetics and applying it to the general problem of 3D clustering. We have developed a stringent test that simulates the situation where a protein sequence of interest is submitted to multiple different algorithms and not one of these algorithms can make a confident (95%) correct assignment. A method of meta‐server prediction (Phyre) that exploits the benefits of a controlled environment for the component methods was implemented. At 95% precision or higher, Phyre identified 64.0% of all correct homologous query–template relationships, and 84.0% of the individual test query proteins could be accurately annotated. In comparison to the improvement that the single best fold recognition algorithm (according to training) has over PSI‐Blast, this represents a 29.6% increase in the number of correct homologous query–template relationships, and a 46.2% increase in the number of accurately annotated queries. It has been well recognised in fold prediction, other bioinformatics applications, and in many other areas, that ensemble predictions generally are superior in accuracy to any of the component individual methods. However there is a paucity of information as to why the ensemble methods are superior and indeed this has never been systematically addressed in fold recognition. Here we show that the source of ensemble power stems from noise reduction in filtering out false positive matches. The results indicate greater coverage of sequence space and improved model quality, which can consequently lead to a reduction in the experimental workload of structural genomics initiatives. Proteins 2008. © 2007 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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/prot.21688

Cites

3 of 3 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

Cited by

See all 411

Metadata

Authors
Bennett‐Lovsey, R. M., Herbert, A. D., Sternberg, M. J. E., & Kelley, L. A.
Venue
Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-01-02
Volume
70
Issue
3
Pages
611-625
ISSN
  • 0887-3585 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0134
OpenAlex
W2133812171
Cited by
411
References
3
FWCI
27.30
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.