PubMed · 9544017
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
D Huber. Facilitating instrument evaluation.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9544017/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
A novel automatic procedure for identifying domains from protein atomic coordinates is presented. The procedure, termed STRUDL (STRUctural Domain Limits), does not take into account information on secondary structures and handles any number of domains made up of contiguous or non-contiguous chain segments. The core algorithm uses the Kernighan-Lin graph heuristic to partition the protein into residue sets which display minimum interactions between them. These interactions are deduced from the weighted Voronoi diagram. The generated partitions are accepted or rejected on the basis of optimized criteria, representing basic expected physical properties of structural domains. The graph heuristic approach is shown to be very effective, it approximates closely the exact solution provided by a branch and bound algorithm for a number of test proteins. In addition, the overall performance of STRUDL is assessed on a set of 787 representative proteins from the Protein Data Bank by comparison to domain definitions in the CATH protein classification. The domains assigned by STRUDL agree with the CATH assignments in at least 81% of the tested proteins. This result is comparable to that obtained previously using PUU (Holm and Sander, Proteins 1994;9:256-268), the only other available algorithm designed to identify domains with any number of non-contiguous chain segments. A detailed discussion of the structures for which our assignments differ from those in CATH brings to light some clear inconsistencies between the concept of structural domains based on minimizing inter-domain interactions and that of delimiting structural motifs that represent acceptable folding topologies or architectures. Considering both concepts as complementary and combining them in a layered approach might be the way forward.
OBJECTIVE: To review published criteria for specifically evaluating health related information on the world wide web, and to identify areas of consensus. DESIGN: Search of world wide web sites and peer reviewed medical journals for explicit criteria for evaluating health related information on the web, using Medline and Lexis-Nexis databases, and the following internet search engines: Yahoo!, Excite, Altavista, Webcrawler, HotBot, Infoseek, Magellan Internet Guide, and Lycos. Criteria were extracted and grouped into categories. RESULTS: 29 published rating tools and journal articles were identified that had explicit criteria for assessing health related web sites. Of the 165 criteria extracted from these tools and articles, 132 (80%) were grouped under one of 12 specific categories and 33 (20%) were grouped as miscellaneous because they lacked specificity or were unique. The most frequently cited criteria were those dealing with content, design and aesthetics of site, disclosure of authors, sponsors, or developers, currency of information (includes frequency of update, freshness, maintenance of site), authority of source, ease of use, and accessibility and availability. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that many authors agree on key criteria for evaluating health related web sites, and that efforts to develop consensus criteria may be helpful. The next step is to identify and assess a clear, simple set of consensus criteria that the general public can understand and use.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.