The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Threading a database of protein cores
Abstract
We present an analysis of 10 blind predictions prepared for a recent conference, “Critical Assessment of Techniques for Protein Structure Prediction.”1 The sequences of these proteins are not detectably similar to those of any protein in the structure database then available, but we attempted, by a threading method, to recognize similarity to known domain folds. Four of the 10 proteins, as we subsequently learned, do indeed show significant similarity to then‐known structures. For 2 of these proteins the predictions were accurate, in the sense that a similar structure was at or near the top of the list of threading scores, and the threading alignment agreed well with the corresponding structural alignment. For the best predicted model mean alignment error relative to the optimal structural alignment was 2.7 residues, arising entirely from small “register shifts” of strands or helices. In the analysis we attempt to identify factors responsible for these successes and failures. Since our threading method does not use gap penalties, we may readily distinguish between errors arising from our prior definition of the “cores” of known structures and errors arising from inherent limitations in the threading potential. It would appear from the results that successful substructure recognition depends most critically on accurate definition of the “fold” of a database protein. This definition must correctly delineate substructures that are, and are not, likely to be conserved during protein evolution. © 1995 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
The relation between the divergence of sequence and structure in proteins.
Chothia, C., & Lesk, A. M. (1986) · The EMBO Journal · doi:10.1002/j.1460-2075.1986.tb04288.x · Cited by 2,458
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
Topology fingerprint approach to the inverse protein folding problem
Godzik, A., Kolinski, A., & Skolnick, J. (1992) · Journal of Molecular Biology · doi:10.1016/0022-2836(92)90693-e · Cited by 339
Cited by
Makarova, K. S., Grishin, N. V., Shabalina, S. A., Wolf, Y. I., & Koonin, E. V. (2006) · Biology Direct · doi:10.1186/1745-6150-1-7 · Cited by 1,199
Classification and evolution of P-loop GTPases and related ATPases
Leipe, D. D., Wolf, Y. I., Koonin, E. V., & Aravind, L. (2002) · Journal of Molecular Biology · doi:10.1006/jmbi.2001.5378 · Cited by 1,148
Domain size distributions can predict domain boundaries
Wheelan, S. J., Marchler-Bauer, A., & Bryant, S. H. (2000) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/16.7.613 · Cited by 182
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Madej, T., Gibrat, J., & Bryant, S. H.
- Venue
- Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1995-11
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 356-369
- ISSN
- 0887-3585 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0134
- OpenAlex
- W2050330741
- Cited by
- 440
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 4.03
- 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.