Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39576579›Full record

ArticleMethods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.)2025

AlphaFold2, SPINE-X, and Seder on Four Hard CASP Targets.

Eshel Faraggi, Robert L Jernigan, Andrzej Kloczkowski

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Eshel FaraggiResearch and Information Systems, LLC, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Robert L JerniganRoy J. Carver Department of Biochemistry, Biophysics and Molecular Biology, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA.
Andrzej KloczkowskiThe Steve and Cindy Rasmussen Institute for Genomic Medicine, Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, OH, USA.

Funding

Novel Use of Genome Information to Understand MutationsR01HG012117 · NHGRI · IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY · PI JERNIGAN, ROBERT L, KLOCZKOWSKI, ANDRZEJ · 2021 to 2025
$2.3M
Protein Sequence MatchingR01GM127701 · NIGMS · IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY · PI JERNIGAN, ROBERT L, KLOCZKOWSKI, ANDRZEJ · 2018 to 2021
$1.4M
NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG012117NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM127701
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We analyzed four cases from the CASP15 experiment with low prediction accuracy and compared AlphaFold2, SPINE-X, and Seder on these cases. We find that overall, AlphaFold2 performs better than SPINE-X in predicting secondary structure (SS) and solvent accessible surface area (ASA). For some cases, SPINE-X better predicts sheet and coil regions. We also find that AlphaFold2 is better than Seder in selecting the best matching tertiary structure model for one case and is worse in another case. For two cases Alphafold2 and Seder selected the same models. From the cases presented here, it appears that AlphaFold2 predicts more compact structures than the native one. We find that while, as widely reported, AlphaFold2 significantly improved protein tertiary structure prediction, there are cases, such as the four presented here, for which the tertiary structure prediction could still be significantly enhanced. The source code, license, and documentation for SPINE-X and Seder are available from Research and Information Systems, LLC at http://mamiris.com .

Indexed as

Computational BiologySoftwareAlgorithmsModels, MolecularProtein ConformationProtein FoldingProteinsProtein Structure, SecondaryProtein Structure, TertiaryProteinsAccessible surface areaAlphaFold2Protein structureSecondary structureSederSPINE-X

Identifiers

PMID39576579
PMCPMC12131911

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.