2019
DOI: 10.2174/1570163815666180227162157
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Systematic Review on Popularity, Application and Characteristics of Protein Secondary Structure Prediction Tools

Abstract: This study provides a comprehensive insight about the recent usage of SSP tools which could be helpful for selecting a proper tool's choice.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 150 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The OsTHIC gene primary protein sequence was subjected to secondary structure prediction analysis. The secondary structure was predicted using NPS-GOR4 tool by the information theory algorithm [13,14].…”
Section: Prediction Of Osthic Gene Secondary Structurementioning
confidence: 99%
“…The OsTHIC gene primary protein sequence was subjected to secondary structure prediction analysis. The secondary structure was predicted using NPS-GOR4 tool by the information theory algorithm [13,14].…”
Section: Prediction Of Osthic Gene Secondary Structurementioning
confidence: 99%
“…The huge amount of protein sequences that lack the residue-level annotations has motivated the development of hundreds of computational methods that predict these annotations from the sequences. For instance, there are over 60 predictors of the secondary structure [5] , [6] , [7] , over 100 predictors of the intrinsic disorder [8] , [9] , [10] , [11] , [12] , and close to 40 predictors of the residues that bind nucleic acids [13] , [14] , [15] . Some of these methods are heavily used, which can be indirectly measured by their citations.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Availability of the many sequence-based predictors of the residue-level annotations has spurred numerous studies that survey and compare these tools [1] , [2] , [5] , [6] , [7] , [8] , [9] , [10] , [11] , [13] , [14] , [15] , [29] , [30] , [31] , [32] , [33] , [34] , [35] , [36] , [37] , [38] , [39] , [40] , [41] , [42] , [43] , [44] , [45] , [46] . A large portion of these studies focuses on the empirical comparative assessment of their predictive performance.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Hundreds of these predictors have been developed over the last few decades ( 5–24 ). For instance, there are over 60 tools for predicting secondary structure ( 10 , 22 , 23 ), over 70 predictors for intrinsic disorder ( 14 , 16 , 20 , 21 ), and close to 40 predictors of AAs-nucleic acids interactions ( 24 ). Recent empirical assessments demonstrate that many of these tools provide accurate predictions ( 11 , 25–31 ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%