PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 3237683

Secondary structure prediction: combination of three different methods.

Abstract

A combination of three complementary secondary structure prediction methods is presented. The methods used are the GOR III method, the Homologue method and a new method, the bit pattern method, which is based on hydrophilic/hydrophobic residue patterns. For this purpose a hydropathy scale was developed and is presented here. The combination algorithm (Combine method) was designed to take the best results of each method and use their differences in order to improve the prediction. The combination yields 65.5% correctly predicted residues in three states: alpha-helix (H), beta-strand (E) and aperiodic structure (C) which is an improvement ranging from 2.5 to 6.5% compared with the individual methods when tested with a 67-polypeptide chain database. Seventy-five per cent of the regular secondary structure (H and E) runs are correctly located and beta-sheet runs are much better located by the Combine method in comparison to the other methods.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

V Biou, J F Gibrat, J M Levin, B Robson, J Garnier. 1988. Secondary structure prediction: combination of three different methods.. https://doi.org/10.1093/protein%2F2.3.185

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

An investigation of new toxicity test method performance in validation studies: 2. Comparison of three measures of toxicity test performance.

An area that requires further research is how best to measure test method performance in validation studies and how to set criteria that should be used to judge the adequacy of this performance. The studies reported here were designed to begin an investigation of these questions. Computer simulations were used to generate data sets similar to those that might be obtained from a large validation study. These data were then analysed using three procedures including determination of the 95% prediction interval (PI), calculation of Pearson's correlation coefficient and calculation of the contingent probability statistics (CPS), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). The results of this work suggest that of the three approaches examined, quantitative measurements with calculation of the 95% PI provide the most information to allow discrimination between the performance of several different NTMs. The results also suggest that dividing data sets into positive and negative toxicity classifications followed by the calculation of CPS leads to considerable information loss. This loss of information may be so significant that it is not possible in certain circumstances to distinguish between NTMs that are adequate and those that are not.

Predictive Value of Tests↗