2014
DOI: 10.1016/j.compbiolchem.2014.10.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Three-dimensional protein structure prediction: Methods and computational strategies

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4

Citation Types

0
103
0
4

Year Published

2015
2015
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 163 publications
(110 citation statements)
references
References 394 publications
0
103
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…Moreover, due to strict laboratory requirements and heavy operational burdens, it is not always feasible to determine the protein structure experimentally. Therefore, researchers focused on predicting protein structure from the given amino acid sequences by computational methods [6]. A successful study of computational methods in PSP reveals two facts.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, due to strict laboratory requirements and heavy operational burdens, it is not always feasible to determine the protein structure experimentally. Therefore, researchers focused on predicting protein structure from the given amino acid sequences by computational methods [6]. A successful study of computational methods in PSP reveals two facts.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Perhaps, the simplest conception is to use sequence homology based on comparisons to known structures to infer structural elements for proteins of interest [1719]. Over the years other computational techniques have advanced significantly and protein structure prediction efforts can currently be grouped into those using ab initio methods (or ab initio guided approaches) and template-based methods (fold recognition and threading, comparative modelling) [20]. Currently, protein structure prediction remains a highly active and rapidly evolving area of research [2123].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…If a BLAST search cannot safely indicate relatives, we apply different tools like dynamic programming [Smith & Waterman, 1981; also see UNIT 3.10 (Ropelewski, Nicholas, & Deerfield, 2004)], hidden Markov models (Krogh, Brown, Mian, Sjolander, & Haussler, 1994), and structural comparisons and predictions (Dorn, MB, Buriol, & Lamb, 2014). If a BLAST search cannot safely indicate relatives, we apply different tools like dynamic programming [Smith & Waterman, 1981; also see UNIT 3.10 (Ropelewski, Nicholas, & Deerfield, 2004)], hidden Markov models (Krogh, Brown, Mian, Sjolander, & Haussler, 1994), and structural comparisons and predictions (Dorn, MB, Buriol, & Lamb, 2014).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…BLAST is also the first tool to use when looking for homologs of a new protein, mRNA, or genomic DNA sequence. If a BLAST search cannot safely indicate relatives, we apply different tools like dynamic programming [Smith & Waterman, 1981; also see UNIT 3.10 (Ropelewski, Nicholas, & Deerfield, 2004)], hidden Markov models (Krogh, Brown, Mian, Sjolander, & Haussler, 1994), and structural comparisons and predictions (Dorn, MB, Buriol, & Lamb, 2014).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%