Comparative modeling in structural genomics.

31 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Critical Assessment of Methods of Protein Structure Prediction (CASP) – Round XII (2017, background): “Different objectives require different levels of accuracy 38,39 : at one extreme, identifying peptides that might be used as epitopes in eliciting an immune response requires only an approximate structure, while at the other, drug design will probably require multiple high-resolution ones.”
RNA-Puzzles Round II: assessment of RNA structure prediction programs applied to three large RNA structures (2015, background): “Although protein related structures constitute >90% of the structure database, 1/1000th of the proteins with known sequences have experimental structures available (Moult 2008).”
Protein Structure Prediction: Is It Useful? (2009, background): “Even models with the lowest resolution from otherwise meaningful predictions, that is, models of approximately correct topology from free modeling approaches or based on weak hits from threading, have a number of uses including protein domain boundary identification [21,22], topology recognition, or”
I-TASSER: a unified platform for automated protein structure and function prediction (2010, methodology): “, models with an approximately correct topology, predicted using either ab initio approaches or based on weak hits from threading, have a number of uses including protein domain boundary identificatio”