Exact(1)
Most methods predicted 9−11 transmembrane segments (TM) for ANTR1.
Similar(59)
Most existing methods predict the contact map matrix element-by-element, ignoring correlation among contacts and physical feasibility of the whole-contact map.
However, both scoring methods predicted that most of skatole affinity involved diffuse binding.
Most methods for predicting protein attributes are based on the notion that two proteins that interact always share similar attributes [ 19– 23].
Since most methods for predicting protein complexes from affinity purification results calculate interaction scores as an intermediate step, we developed a method to extract the complex scaffolds from these densely connected scoring networks.
Most current numerical methods predicting pile capacity do not take installation effects into account, as large deformations can lead to mesh distortion and non-converging solutions.
Most of these methods predict new gene or protein properties (annotations) on the basis of sequence homology and similarities between known functions.
Although most of existing methods predict phosphorylation sites based solely on the primary sequences around the phosphorylation sites, the primary sequences cannot fully determine whether the phosphorylation will occur.
For completeness, we compared our predictions with those obtained using several publicly available automatic function prediction methods [53], [54], but the results were not very informative, as most of these methods predict molecular or biochemical functions, whereas our study predicts a relatively specific function ("chromatin modification") in the biological process category.
In order to create an evidence-based approach to emergency paediatric weight estimation, it is crucial to discover which methods predict weight most accurately and which are most appropriate for emergency use.
Our methods predict the most likely regulator based on hundreds of previously published experiments, as, in our case, are those used to generate WormNet [ 34].
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com