2015
DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btv472
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Protein contact prediction by integrating joint evolutionary coupling analysis and supervised learning

Abstract: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
56
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 109 publications
(59 citation statements)
references
References 44 publications
2
56
0
Order By: Relevance
“…At first, a Monte Carlo approach was used to explore parameter space randomly [7], but this approach is computationally costly. Since then, various entropy-maximization methods have been implemented to approximate and simplify these coupling parameters [8], including susceptibility propagation [9], mean-field approximation (mfDCA and in the original EVFold) [10-12], multivariate Gaussian modeling [13], pseudo-likelihood maximization (implemented in plmDCA, CCMpred, the new EVFold, and GREMLIN) [14-17], Boltzmann network formalism [18], Bayesian network models [19], and sparse inverse covariance estimation (PSICOV) [20,21]. These methods, which we will call direct methods , have greatly increased the accuracy of sequence coevolution analysis in predicting true contacts, opening up this method to predicting protein structures [11,22-24], protein-protein interactions [25,26], and the effects of mutations [27].…”
Section: Introduction To Sequence Coevolution Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…At first, a Monte Carlo approach was used to explore parameter space randomly [7], but this approach is computationally costly. Since then, various entropy-maximization methods have been implemented to approximate and simplify these coupling parameters [8], including susceptibility propagation [9], mean-field approximation (mfDCA and in the original EVFold) [10-12], multivariate Gaussian modeling [13], pseudo-likelihood maximization (implemented in plmDCA, CCMpred, the new EVFold, and GREMLIN) [14-17], Boltzmann network formalism [18], Bayesian network models [19], and sparse inverse covariance estimation (PSICOV) [20,21]. These methods, which we will call direct methods , have greatly increased the accuracy of sequence coevolution analysis in predicting true contacts, opening up this method to predicting protein structures [11,22-24], protein-protein interactions [25,26], and the effects of mutations [27].…”
Section: Introduction To Sequence Coevolution Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this case, we used the number of effective sequences in a MSA as comparison metric to account for the fact that highly similar homologous do not provide any additional contact information than a single one. Similar to Ma et al [21] we grouped the test set members into five categories by l n ( N eff ): [4,5),[5,6),[6,7),[7,8),[8,10), and calculated the averaged L /10 accuracies for each group. Figure 3 shows clearly that COUSCOus outperforms PSICOV regardless of the l n ( N eff ) on long, medium and short range contacts.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Most recently, new hybrid methods have been developed, amidst many others such as DNCON [19], PConsC [20], CoinDCA [21] or MetaPSICOV [22], where contact detecting methods are combined along with protein physiochemical features to provide more accurate contact predictions.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Protein contact prediction is a crucially important step for protein structure prediction. Many contact prediction methods have been developed [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]. In earlier stages of contact prediction history, most successful prediction methods were based on evolutionary coupling analysis (ECA) of large multiple sequence alignment (MSA) of homologue sequences.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%