4.5 Article

CONCORD: a consensus method for protein secondary structure prediction via mixed integer linear optimization

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rspa.2011.0514

关键词

secondary structure prediction; mixed integer optimization; consensus method

资金

  1. National Science Foundation
  2. National Institutes of Health [R01 GM52032, R24 GM069736]
  3. US Environmental Protection Agency, EPA [GAD R832721-010]
  4. US Environmental Protection Agency's STAR [R832721-010]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Most of the protein structure prediction methods use a multi-step process, which often includes secondary structure prediction, contact prediction, fragment generation, clustering, etc. For many years, secondary structure prediction has been the workhorse for numerous methods aimed at predicting protein structure and function. This paper presents a new mixed integer linear optimization (MILP)-based consensus method: a Consensus scheme based On a mixed integer liNear optimization method for seCOndary stRucture preDiction (CONCORD). Based on seven secondary structure prediction methods, SSpro, DSC, PROF, PROFphd, PSIPRED, Predator and GorIV, the MILP-based consensus method combines the strengths of different methods, maximizes the number of correctly predicted amino acids and achieves a better prediction accuracy. The method is shown to perform well compared with the seven individual methods when tested on the PDBselect25 training protein set using sixfold cross validation. It also performs well compared with another set of 10 online secondary structure prediction servers (including several recent ones) when tested on the CASP9 targets (http://predictioncenter.org/casp9/). The average Q3 prediction accuracy is 83.04 per cent for the sixfold cross validation of the PDBselect25 set and 82.3 per cent for the CASP9 targets. We have developed a MILP-based consensus method for protein secondary structure prediction. A web server, CONCORD, is available to the scientific community at http://helios.princeton.edu/CONCORD.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据