The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
MAMMOTH (Matching molecular models obtained from theory): An automated method for model comparison
Open accessAbstract
Advances in structural genomics and protein structure prediction require the design of automatic, fast, objective, and well benchmarked methods capable of comparing and assessing the similarity of low‐resolution three‐dimensional structures, via experimental or theoretical approaches. Here, a new method for sequence‐independent structural alignment is presented that allows comparison of an experimental protein structure with an arbitrary low‐resolution protein tertiary model. The heuristic algorithm is given and then used to show that it can describe random structural alignments of proteins with different folds with good accuracy by an extreme value distribution. From this observation, a structural similarity score between two proteins or two different conformations of the same protein is derived from the likelihood of obtaining a given structural alignment by chance. The performance of the derived score is then compared with well established, consensus manual‐based scores and data sets. We found that the new approach correlates better than other tools with the gold standard provided by a human evaluator. Timings indicate that the algorithm is fast enough for routine use with large databases of protein models. Overall, our results indicate that the new program (MAMMOTH) will be a good tool for protein structure comparisons in structural genomics applications. MAMMOTH is available from our web site at http://physbio.mssm.edu/∼ortizg/ .
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
Needleman, S. B., & Wunsch, C. D. (1970) · Journal of Molecular Biology · doi:10.1016/0022-2836(70)90057-4 · Cited by 11,288
Protein Structure Comparison by Alignment of Distance Matrices
Holm, L., & Sander, C. (1993) · Journal of Molecular Biology · doi:10.1006/jmbi.1993.1489 · Cited by 3,984 · cited 8×
“(1) Dali (Holm & Sander, 1993); (2) MLC (Boutonnet et al., 1995); (3) VAST (Madej et al., 1995; Gibrat et al., 1996); (4) ProSup (Lackner et al., 2000) 2608 Protein Science, vol. 11 Statistical significance of MAMMOTH scores An all-against-all comparison of different protein folds (Table 1A,…”
BackgroundMethodInfluential
Cited by
Scoring function for automated assessment of protein structure template quality
Zhang, Y., & Skolnick, J. (2004) · Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.20264 · Cited by 2,392
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
How significant is a protein structure similarity with TM-score = 0.5?
Xu, J., & Zhang, Y. (2010) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btq066 · Cited by 1,142
A new learning paradigm: Learning using privileged information
Vapnik, V., & Vashist, A. (2009) · Neural Networks · doi:10.1016/j.neunet.2009.06.042 · Cited by 774
Comparative protein structure modeling using MODELLER
Webb, B., & Sali, A. (2016) · Current Protocols in Protein Science · doi:10.1002/cpps.20 · Cited by 730
Metadata
- Authors
- Ortiz, A. R., Strauss, C. E. M., & Olmea, O.
- Venue
- Protein Science
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2002-11
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 2606-2621
- ISSN
- 0961-8368 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-896X
- OpenAlex
- W2126016150
- Cited by
- 492
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 4.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: MAMMOTH (Matching molecular models obtained from theory): An automated method for model comparison. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1110/ps.0215902
- The paper
- Ortiz, A. R., Strauss, C. E. M., & Olmea, O. (2002). MAMMOTH (Matching molecular models obtained from theory): An automated method for model comparison. Protein Science. https://doi.org/10.1110/ps.0215902
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.