↓ Skip to main content

An Intriguing Controversy over Protein Structural Class Prediction

Overview of attention for article published in The Protein Journal, November 1998
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
306 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 Mendeley
Title
An Intriguing Controversy over Protein Structural Class Prediction
Published in
The Protein Journal, November 1998
DOI 10.1023/a:1020713915365
Pubmed ID
Authors

Guo-Ping Zhou

Abstract

A recent report by Bahar et al. [(1997), Proteins 29, 172-185] indicates that the coupling effects among different amino acid components as originally formulated by K. C. Chou [(1995), Proteins 21, 319-344] are important for improving the prediction of protein structural classes. These authors have further proposed a compact lattice model to illuminate the physical insight contained in the component-coupled algorithm. However, a completely opposite result was concluded by Eisenhaber et al. [(1996), Proteins 25, 169 179], using a different dataset constructed according to their definition. To address such an intriguing controversy, tests were conducted by various approaches for the datasets from an objective database, the SCOP database [Murzin et al. (1995), J. Mol. Biol. 247, 536-540]. The results obtained by both self-consistency and jackknife tests indicate that the overall rates of correct prediction by the algorithm incorporating the coupling effect among different amino acid components are significantly higher than those by the algorithms without counting such an effect. This is fully consistent with the physical reality that the folding of a protein is the result of a collective interaction among its constituent amino acid residues, and hence the coupling effects of different amino acid components must be incorporated in order to improve the prediction quality. It was found by a revisiting the calculation procedures by Eisenhaber et al. that there was a conceptual mistake in constructing the structural class datasets and a systematic mistake in applying the component-coupled algorithm. These findings are informative for understanding and utilizing the component-coupled algorithm to study the structural classes of proteins.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 5%
Unknown 19 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 35%
Researcher 5 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 15%
Professor 2 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 10%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 1 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 8 40%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 30%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 15%
Engineering 1 5%
Unknown 2 10%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 February 2020.
All research outputs
#8,534,528
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from The Protein Journal
#163
of 639 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,750
of 41,240 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Protein Journal
#1
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 639 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 41,240 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them