A systematic comparison of protein structure classifications: SCOP, CATH and FSSP.
By C. Hadley, David C. Jones. 1999
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
- Liam J. McGuffin
- Jianlin Cheng
- Yang Zhang
- Arne Elofsson
- Björn Wallner
- Badri Adhikari
- Lisa N. Kinch
- David T. Jones
Citations in the corpus
- ECOD: An Evolutionary Classification of Protein Domains (2014, background): “However, the definition of fold can be subjective [23], and fold is a geometrical concept without explicit evolutionary meaning.”
- DeepSF: deep convolutional neural network for mapping protein sequences to folds (2017, background): “Folds represent the main characteristics of protein structures, which describe the unique arrangement of secondary structure elements in the infinite conformation space (Hadley and Jones, 1999; Murzin et al., 1995).”
- DALI and the persistence of protein shape (2019, result): “Manual classifications show discrepancies when compared to each other 57 and inconsistencies when compared to the results of automated comparisons.”
- An ensemble approach to protein fold classification by integration of template‐based assignment and support vector machine classifier (2016, background): “For example, the 3-layer (aba) sandwich fold in CATH is divided into at least 16 different folds in SCOP (Hadley and Jones, 1999).”
- Pcons: A neural‐network–based consensus predictor that improves fold recognition (2001, background): “This might be advantageous as it is not trivial to uniquely define folds (Hadley and Jones 1999), and even if the correct fold is found, the alignment could potentially be wrong.”
- Improvement of the GenTHREADER Method for Genomic Fold Recognition (2003, background): “The highest Z -score between each pair is taken (see Hadley and Jones, 1999 for a detailed analysis of FSSP Z -scores in comparison to SCOP and CATH fold definitions).”
- Assessment of domain boundary predictions and the prediction of intramolecular contacts in CASP8 (2009, background): “19 For several targets, we felt that there were two or more valid domain definitions for the domain prediction assessment.”