↓ Skip to main content

CRF-based models of protein surfaces improve protein-protein interaction site predictions

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
CRF-based models of protein surfaces improve protein-protein interaction site predictions
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, August 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2105-15-277
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zhijie Dong, Keyu Wang, Truong Khanh Linh Dang, Mehmet Gültas, Marlon Welter, Torsten Wierschin, Mario Stanke, Stephan Waack

Abstract

The identification of protein-protein interaction sites is a computationally challenging task and importantfor understanding the biology of protein complexes. There is a rich literature in this field. A broadclass of approaches assign to each candidate residue a real-valued score that measures how likely it isthat the residue belongs to the interface. The prediction is obtained by thresholding this score.Some probabilistic models classify the residues on the basis of the posterior probabilities. In thispaper, we introduce pairwise conditional random fields (pCRFs) in which edges are not restrictedto the backbone as in the case of linear-chain CRFs utilized by Li et al. (2007). In fact, any 3Dneighborhoodrelation can be modeled. On grounds of a generalized Viterbi inference algorithm anda piecewise training process for pCRFs, we demonstrate how to utilize pCRFs to enhance a givenresidue-wise score-based protein-protein interface predictor on the surface of the protein under study.The features of the pCRF are solely based on the interface predictions scores of the predictor theperformance of which shall be improved.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 7%
Germany 1 4%
Unknown 24 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 26%
Researcher 4 15%
Student > Postgraduate 3 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 11%
Other 2 7%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 4 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 10 37%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 11%
Arts and Humanities 1 4%
Mathematics 1 4%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 6 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 August 2014.
All research outputs
#18,376,056
of 22,760,687 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#6,307
of 7,273 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#164,820
of 231,138 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#98
of 116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,760,687 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,273 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 231,138 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 116 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.