Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Exact(20)
Evidently, Fpocket produces more putative pockets than ConCavity.
This can be attributed to the fact that ConCavity predicts, on average, less putative pockets than Fpocket (see Table 1).
The ligandability scores are finally merged into the resulting pocket score to be used for prioritization of the putative pockets.
Negatives, in our case, are practically represented by everything else or more precisely all other points within the putative pockets.
Thus the very last step involves reordering the putative pockets in the decreasing order of their PScores.
Higher number of putative pockets and higher coverage makes Fpocket a better target of a re-ranking algorithm.
Similar(40)
Our current implementation of depth reflects how central a given subspace is to a putative pocket.
The higher the PScore of a putative pocket, the higher the probability of it being a true pocket.
The predictions are combined into a score for a given putative pocket which is then used in the re-ranking phase.
Under acidic conditions in the late endosomes, the amine "head" of sphingosine, a putative "pocket factor", bears a positive charge, while α4, α5, α7 of SCARB2 and the late endosomal membrane are negatively charged (Fig. S6A and S6B).
The correlation coefficient for ligand anti-tubulin activities and their binding energies at the putative pocket was found to be r = 0.79, a high correlation efficiency that was not replicated in contiguous candidate pockets.
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