Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 672

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Assessing the utility of coevolution-based residue–residue contact predictions in a sequence- and structure-rich era

Open access
Kamisetty, Hetunandan, Ovchinnikov, Sergey, Baker, David·2013·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
DOI 10.1073/pnas.1314045110
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Significance: We develop an improved method for predicting residue–residue contacts in protein structures that achieves higher accuracy than previous methods by integrating structural context and sequence coevolution information. We then determine the conditions under which these predicted contacts are likely to be useful for structure modeling and identify more than 400 protein families where these conditions are currently met.

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 · 10.1073/pnas.1314045110

Cites

4 of 4 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 4 references

Research works printed but not linked: 20

  1. ML Tress, A Valencia, Predicted residue–residue contacts can help the scoring of 3d models. Proteins. Struct Funct Bioinf 78, 1980–1991 (2010). · DOI
  2. DT Jones, DWA Buchan, D Cozzetto, M Pontil, PSICOV: Precise structural contact prediction using sparse inverse covariance estimation on large multiple sequence alignments. Bioinformatics 28, 184–190 (2012). · DOI · Paper page
  3. M Ekeberg, C Lövkvist, Y Lan, M Weigt, E Aurell, Improved contact prediction in proteins: using pseudolikelihoods to infer Potts models. Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys 87, 012707 (2013). · DOI · Paper page
  4. K Arnold, et al., The protein model portal. J Struct Funct Genomics 10, 1–8 (2009). · DOI
  5. SD Dunn, LM Wahl, GB Gloor, Mutual information without the influence of phylogeny or entropy dramatically improves residue contact prediction. Bioinformatics 24, 333–340 (2008). · DOI
  6. LJ McGuffin, K Bryson, DT Jones, The PSIPRED protein structure prediction server. Bioinformatics 16, 404–405 (2000). · DOI
  7. J Cheng, P Baldi, Improved residue contact prediction using support vector machines and a large feature set. BMC Bioinf 8, 113 (2007). · DOI
  8. JI Sułkowska, F Morcos, M Weigt, T Hwa, JN Onuchic, Genomics-aided structure prediction. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109, 10340–10345 (2012). · DOI
  9. T Nugent, DT Jones, Accurate de novo structure prediction of large transmembrane protein domains using fragment-assembly and correlated mutation analysis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109, E1540–E1547 (2012). · DOI
  10. HM Berman, et al., The protein data bank. Nucleic Acids Res 28, 235–242 (2000). · DOI · Paper page
  11. Y Zhang, J Skolnick, TM-align: A protein structure alignment algorithm based on the TM-score. Nucleic Acids Res 33, 2302–2309 (2005). · DOI · Paper page
  12. TA Hopf, et al., Three-dimensional structures of membrane proteins from genomic sequencing. Cell 149, 1607–1621 (2012). · DOI · Paper page
  13. M Weigt, RA White, H Szurmant, JA Hoch, T Hwa, Identification of direct residue contacts in protein-protein interaction by message passing. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106, 67–72 (2009). · DOI · Paper page
  14. O Banerjee, L El Ghaoui, A d’Aspremont, Model selection through sparse maximum likelihood estimation for multivariate Gaussian or binary data. J Mach Learn Res 9, 485–516 (2008).
  15. Gidas B (1988) Consistency of maximum likelihood and pseudo-likelihood estimators for Gibbs distributions. J Inst Math Its Appl 10:129–145. · DOI
  16. J Söding, Protein homology detection by HMM-HMM comparison. Bioinformatics 21, 951–960 (2005). · DOI
  17. A Bateman, et al., The PFAM protein families database. Nucleic Acids Res 30, 276–280 (2002). · DOI · Paper page
  18. A Biegert, C Mayer, M Remmert, J Söding, AN Lupas, The MPI Bioinformatics Toolkit for protein sequence analysis. Nucleic Acids Res 34, W335-9 (2006). · DOI
  19. G Wang, RL Dunbrack, PISCES: Recent improvements to a PDB sequence culling server. Nucleic Acids Res 33, W94-8 (2005). · DOI
  20. CS Jeong, D Kim, Reliable and robust detection of coevolving protein residues. Protein Engineering Design and Selection 25, 705–713 (2012). · DOI

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Kamisetty, H., Ovchinnikov, S., & Baker, D.
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Publisher
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2013-09-05
Volume
110
Issue
39
Pages
15674-15679
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
DOI
10.1073/pnas.1314045110
OpenAlex
W2013425283
Cited by
672
References
4
FWCI
17.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
correction (2013-10-25)
Open access
bronze

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.