2013
DOI: 10.1016/j.dit.2013.04.003
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparative evaluation of commercially available homology modelling tools: A structural bioinformatics perspective

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A homology model of the scFv antibody was obtained using the macro incorporated within YASARA Structure ( Dahiya et al. 2013 ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A homology model of the scFv antibody was obtained using the macro incorporated within YASARA Structure ( Dahiya et al. 2013 ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Five different structural descriptors are employed by QMEAN, which are (1) Interdiscip Sci Comput Life Sci distance-dependent pairwise potential, (2) solvation potential, (3) torsion angle potential, (4) secondary structure and solvent accessibility agreement, and (5) measures for the structural similarity between model and target [44]. Validation of many in silico predicted protein structures were also done with QMEAN for indicating the acceptability of the predicted model [45]. G-factor is log-odds score that measures stereochemical property of the models built to show how ''unusual'' a model is when comparing to native protein.…”
Section: Qmean G-factor and Final Potential Energymentioning
confidence: 99%