Criteria for evaluating protein structures derived from comparative modeling

By Č. Venclovas, Adam T. Zemla, Krzysztof Fidelis, John Moult. 1997

How researchers see this paper

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

1. Tim J. P. Hubbard
2. Arne Elofsson
3. Ben M. Webb
4. Yang Zhang
5. N. Siew
6. Anna Tramontano
7. John-Marc Chandonia
8. Björn Wallner

Citations in the corpus

• 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 ”
• Critical assessment of methods of protein structure prediction (CASP): Round IV (2001, methodology): “In fold recognition, the assessing team used the criteria they had developed in previous CASPs.”
• Processing and analysis of CASP3 protein structure predictions (1999, background): “The design considerations have been previously discussed 7 and here we only briefly summarize the additional measures and subsets of structure.”