The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Can correct protein models be identified?
Open accessAbstract
The ability to separate correct models of protein structures from less correct models is of the greatest importance for protein structure prediction methods. Several studies have examined the ability of different types of energy function to detect the native, or native‐like, protein structure from a large set of decoys. In contrast to earlier studies, we examine here the ability to detect models that only show limited structural similarity to the native structure. These correct models are defined by the existence of a fragment that shows significant similarity between this model and the native structure. It has been shown that the existence of such fragments is useful for comparing the performance between different fold recognition methods and that this performance correlates well with performance in fold recognition. We have developed ProQ, a neural‐network‐based method to predict the quality of a protein model that extracts structural features, such as frequency of atom–atom contacts, and predicts the quality of a model, as measured either by LGscore or MaxSub. We show that ProQ performs at least as well as other measures when identifying the native structure and is better at the detection of correct models. This performance is maintained over several different test sets. ProQ can also be combined with the Pcons fold recognition predictor (Pmodeller) to increase its performance, with the main advantage being the elimination of a few high‐scoring incorrect models. Pmodeller was successful in CASP5 and results from the latest LiveBench, LiveBench‐6, indicating that Pmodeller has a higher specificity than Pcons alone.
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
Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs
Altschul, S. (1997) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/25.17.3389 · Cited by 73,302
Neural Networks for Pattern Recognition
Bishop, C. M. (1995) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198538493.001.0001 · Cited by 12,287
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 2×
“In addition to these, models produced by the structural alignment server Dali (Holm and Sander 1993) were used for training but not for testing.”
MethodA 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
The Protein Data Bank: unifying the archive
Westbrook, J. (2002) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/30.1.245 · Cited by 309
Cited by
Predicting the accuracy of protein–ligand docking on homology models
Bordogna, A., Pandini, A., & Bonati, L. (2011) · Journal of Computational Chemistry · doi:10.1002/jcc.21601 · Cited by 107
rawMSA: End-to-end Deep Learning using raw Multiple Sequence Alignments
Mirabello, C., & Wallner, B. (2019) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0220182 · Cited by 105
Self-citationProtein sequence‐to‐structure learning: Is this the end(‐to‐end revolution)?
Laine, E., Eismann, S., Elofsson, A., & Grudinin, S. (2021) · Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.26235 · Cited by 44
Self-citationMurmu, S., Rashmi, M., Nagrale, D. T., Kour, T., Singh, M. K., Chaurasia, A., Behera, S. K., Shankar, R., Ranjan, R., Jha, G. K., et al. (2025) · Journal of Cotton Research · doi:10.1186/s42397-024-00203-z · Cited by 7
Estimating protein complex model accuracy using graph transformers and pairwise similarity graphs
Liu, J., Neupane, P., & Cheng, J. (2024) · Bioinformatics Advances · doi:10.1093/bioadv/vbaf180 · Cited by 6
Metadata
- Authors
- Wallner, B., & Elofsson, A.
- Venue
- Protein Science
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2003-05
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1073-1086
- ISSN
- 0961-8368 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-896X
- OpenAlex
- W1965517743
- Cited by
- 710
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 2.79
- 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: Can correct protein models be identified? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1110/ps.0236803
- The paper
- Wallner, B., & Elofsson, A. (2003). Can correct protein models be identified? Protein Science. https://doi.org/10.1110/ps.0236803
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.