↓ Skip to main content

The second round of Critical Assessment of Automated Structure Determination of Proteins by NMR: CASD-NMR-2013

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Biomolecular NMR, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
Title
The second round of Critical Assessment of Automated Structure Determination of Proteins by NMR: CASD-NMR-2013
Published in
Journal of Biomolecular NMR, June 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10858-015-9953-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Antonio Rosato, Wim Vranken, Rasmus H. Fogh, Timothy J. Ragan, Roberto Tejero, Kari Pederson, Hsiau-Wei Lee, James H. Prestegard, Adelinda Yee, Bin Wu, Alexander Lemak, Scott Houliston, Cheryl H. Arrowsmith, Michael Kennedy, Thomas B. Acton, Rong Xiao, Gaohua Liu, Gaetano T. Montelione, Geerten W. Vuister

Abstract

The second round of the community-wide initiative Critical Assessment of automated Structure Determination of Proteins by NMR (CASD-NMR-2013) comprised ten blind target datasets, consisting of unprocessed spectral data, assigned chemical shift lists and unassigned NOESY peak and RDC lists, that were made available in both curated (i.e. manually refined) or un-curated (i.e. automatically generated) form. Ten structure calculation programs, using fully automated protocols only, generated a total of 164 three-dimensional structures (entries) for the ten targets, sometimes using both curated and un-curated lists to generate multiple entries for a single target. The accuracy of the entries could be established by comparing them to the corresponding manually solved structure of each target, which was not available at the time the data were provided. Across the entire data set, 71 % of all entries submitted achieved an accuracy relative to the reference NMR structure better than 1.5 Å. Methods based on NOESY peak lists achieved even better results with up to 100 % of the entries within the 1.5 Å threshold for some programs. However, some methods did not converge for some targets using un-curated NOESY peak lists. Over 90 % of the entries achieved an accuracy better than the more relaxed threshold of 2.5 Å that was used in the previous CASD-NMR-2010 round. Comparisons between entries generated with un-curated versus curated peaks show only marginal improvements for the latter in those cases where both calculations converged.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Belgium 1 3%
Unknown 35 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 17%
Researcher 6 17%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 6 17%
Unknown 8 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 22%
Chemistry 8 22%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 11%
Computer Science 2 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 10 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 23 June 2015.
All research outputs
#20,281,599
of 22,815,414 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Biomolecular NMR
#558
of 614 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#220,559
of 264,485 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Biomolecular NMR
#10
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,815,414 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 614 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 264,485 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.