Evaluation of CASP8 model quality predictions

By Domenico Cozzetto, Andriy Kryshtafovych, Anna Tramontano. 2009

83 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Materials Chemistry, 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 Materials Chemistry

In Molecular Biology

Citations in the corpus

Evaluation of model quality predictions in CASP9 (2011, methodology): “As in previous CASPs,20,21 the performance of each group was measured by the average of the z -scores after replacing negative values with zeros.”
The ModFOLD4 server for the quality assessment of 3D protein models (2013, methodology): “In recent CASP experiments (CASP8–CASP10), the clustering based approaches, such as the MULTICOM (12), Pcons (13), QMEANclust (14) and ModFOLDclust (15) method variants, have been consistent top performers in the QA category (16,17).”
Critical assessment of methods of protein structure prediction—Round VIII (2009, unknown): “13 There are four papers assessing other aspects of structure modeling: domain and three-dimensional (3D) contact identification,14 assessment of disorder,15 prediction of model quality,16 and prediction of ligands binding sites.”
Improved model quality assessment using ProQ2 (2012, result): “Combining ProQ2 with Pcons It has been shown many times, both in CASP [25,28,29] and elsewhere [1,2,21], that consensus methods are superior MQAPs compared to stand-alone or single methods not using consensus or template information, at least in terms of correlation.”
The IntFOLD server: an integrated web resource for protein fold recognition, 3D model quality assessment, intrinsic disorder prediction, domain prediction and ligand binding site prediction (2011, methodology): “Thepreviousiterationofthemethodalsowas oneofthetopthreemethodstestedatCASP8(13).”