CASP2: Report on ab initio predictions
By Arthur M. Lesk. 1997
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
- David Baker
- Yang Zhang
- Richard Bonneau
- Carol A. Rohl
- Dylan Chivian
- Charles E.M. Strauss
- Ben M. Webb
- Angel R. Ortiz
Citations in the corpus
- New encouraging developments in contact prediction: assessment of the CASP11 results (2015, background): “1–9 Much of the research in this area originates from the co-evolution hypothesis suggesting that pairs of residues mutating in a coordinated manner are likely to be in contact.”
- Evaluation of residue-residue contact predictions in CASP9 (2011, background): “Ever since the contact prediction category was introduced in CASP in 1996,39 the number of methods has been steadily increasing.”
- RMS/Coverage graphs: A qualitative method for comparing three‐dimensional protein structure predictions (1999, methodology): “The information shown is: (1) prediction ID; (2) predictor group; (3) number of predictions; (4) the number of residues predicted; (5) an RMS; (6) links labeled [p], [i], [s]; (7) the identifier of the PDB chain from which the model is predicted; (8) the SCOP fold code for the PDB code; and (9) the ”
- MAMMOTH (Matching molecular models obtained from theory): An automated method for model comparison (2002, methodology): “…evaluated the ab initio predictions using three different criteria: the amount of nonoverlapping segments of 25 residues with an RMS value of 4.0 Å (Lesk 1997, referenced here as orengo-lesk); the similarity of the structural environment at each residue position (Taylor and Orengo 1989;…”
- Rosetta in CASP4: Progress in ab initio protein structure prediction (2001, background): “25 We believe that the CASP process itself—with the invaluable objective evaluations and challenges it has provided—has played a critical role in catalyzing much of this progress.”
- Ab initio protein structure prediction: progress and prospects. (2001, background): “The consensus after these first two experiments was that the ab initio structure prediction problem would most probably be solved too late to be applied to any real biological problems (20, 50).”