Critical assessment of methods of protein structure prediction (CASP): Round II

By John Moult, Tim J. P. Hubbard, Stephen H. Bryant, Krzysztof Fidelis, J. Pedersen. 1997

How researchers see this paper

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

Citations in the corpus

Critical Assessment of Methods of Protein Structure Prediction (CASP) – Progress and New directions in Round XI (2016, background): “(4) A new emphasis on modeling protein complexes, in collaboration with CAPRI, has produced interesting results, but also shows the need for more focus on this area.”
Profile hidden Markov models (1998, methodology): “The fold recognition section of the CASP (Current Assessment of Structure Prediction) exercise (Moult et al., 1997) is one of the most interesting anecdotal benchmarks of how HMM techniques perform.”
Critical assessment of methods of protein structure prediction (CASP)‐round V (2003, background): “and CASP2, there was a detectable improvement in prediction quality in many areas.(2) In retrospect, it seems a large”
Protein secondary structure prediction based on position-specific scoring matrices. (1999, methodology): “The CASP ( Moult et al., 1997 ) experiment which has been run every two years since 1994 offers a means to evaluate available prediction methods entirely blindly.”
MaxSub: an automated measure for the assessment of protein structure prediction quality (2000, methodology): “A similar method based on structural superposition that measures both the shift error and ‘contact specificity’ was developed by Bryant and colleagues (Moult et al., 1997; MarchlerBauer and Bryant, 1999).”
Exploiting evolutionary relationships for predicting protein structures (2003, methodology): “One such experiment, the Critical Assessment of Protein Structure Prediction (CASP) (Moult et al., 1995, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003), clearly represents one of the most important events in the history of protein structure prediction and of the interaction between the experimental and computational…”