2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmgm.2017.07.015
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Protein secondary structure prediction: A survey of the state of the art

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
54
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 83 publications
(54 citation statements)
references
References 99 publications
0
54
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For instance, sequencebased secondary structure predictors available in the early 90s with an estimated accuracy between 60% and 65% (Qian and Sejnowski, 1988) were rapidly replaced by a new generation of profile-based predictors with an estimated accuracy between 70% and 76% (Rost and Sander, 1993;Jones, 1999). Since then, predictors have kept improving thanks notably to more sophisticated prediction methods and larger databases (Yang et al, 2016;Jiang et al, 2017) but still belong to the same generation of profile-based predictors. The˜10% gain in accuracy initially observed is still visible nowadays as recently showed in Heffernan et al, 2018 andTorrisi et al, 2019.…”
Section: Three Decades Of Profile-based Predictorsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For instance, sequencebased secondary structure predictors available in the early 90s with an estimated accuracy between 60% and 65% (Qian and Sejnowski, 1988) were rapidly replaced by a new generation of profile-based predictors with an estimated accuracy between 70% and 76% (Rost and Sander, 1993;Jones, 1999). Since then, predictors have kept improving thanks notably to more sophisticated prediction methods and larger databases (Yang et al, 2016;Jiang et al, 2017) but still belong to the same generation of profile-based predictors. The˜10% gain in accuracy initially observed is still visible nowadays as recently showed in Heffernan et al, 2018 andTorrisi et al, 2019.…”
Section: Three Decades Of Profile-based Predictorsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These features classify similar protein sequences to reduce the execution time of PROBCONS tool. Some of the features related to protein secondary structure (PSS) prediction [18,19]. In order to complete the set of biological features, the classification of an amino acid (AA) is represented [20,21].…”
Section: F G K S T K Q T G K G | | | | | F N a T A K S A G K Gmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Here, we are concerned with the prediction of the local conformation of the backbone of a protein, namely its organization into helices, strands, and coils (that is, loosely structured regions). As discussed in recent reviews of secondary structure prediction, this problem is important in its own right, as it impacts many areas of structural bioinformatics and functional genomics 25 , 28 . Linus Pauling can be considered the father of this field, as he correctly predicted the presence of helices and strands as stable substructures in proteins 72 , 73 .…”
Section: Secondary Structure Prediction: Significant Improvements Fromentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Those methods were introduced in the 1990s. Since then, we have seen the development of more and more sophisticated machine-learning methods with more involved neural networks, such as the recent use of deep neural networks 81 and deep convolutional neural fields 82 for secondary structure prediction (for a comprehensive review of the different types of networks and machine-learning techniques that have been applied to solve the secondary structure prediction problem, see 28 ). This recently led Yang et al .…”
Section: Secondary Structure Prediction: Significant Improvements Fromentioning
confidence: 99%