Comparison of performance in successive CASP experiments

By Č. Venclovas, Adam T. Zemla, Krzysztof Fidelis, John Moult. 2001

87 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Biomedical Engineering, Molecular Biology

How researchers see this paper

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

In Biomedical Engineering

1. Andrej Sali
2. John Moult
3. Krzysztof Fidelis

In Molecular Biology

1. Andrej Sali
2. Torsten Schwede
3. Ben M. Webb
4. Yang Zhang
5. Krzysztof Fidelis
6. John Moult
7. Mallur Srivatsan Madhusudhan
8. Marc A. Martí-Renom

Citations in the corpus

• Comparative protein structure modeling by iterative alignment, model building and model assessment. (2003, background): “errors are the most important single limitation on comparative modeling (9).”
• CAPRI: A Critical Assessment of PRedicted Interactions (2003, background): “mology modeling, and detected others that are promising, yet still need development.(17) Over the years, CASP has”
• A comprehensive comparison of comparative RNA structure prediction approaches (2004, background): “Algorithm evaluation is a regular event for protein structure prediction groups [44-47], gene-prediction [48-50] and multiple sequence alignments [51-54].”
• Alignment of protein sequences by their profiles (2004, background): “Some pairs of related proteins have almost no correctly aligned positions when aligned by sequence-based alignments methods (Venclovas et al. 2001).”
• Critical assessment of methods of protein structure prediction (CASP)‐round V (2003, methodology): “The last article is an evaluation of progress since CASP4 using similar methods to those for progress evaluation after CASPs 3(19) and 4.(20)”