Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Table 1.

Node feature inputs.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Fig 1.

The three types of graphs used in EIGN.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Model architecture.

(A) Overall framework of EIGN. (B) Inter-molecular message passing structure.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Table 2.

Experimental results on the PDBbind core set.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Fig 3.

Scatter plots of predicted values (y-axis) versus actual values (x-axis) for EIGN on the validation set, CASF-2013, and CASF-2016.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Table 3.

Comparison of predicted results between EIGN and state-of-the-art methods on CASF-2013 and CASF-2016.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Fig 4.

Prediction performance of EIGN and four variants on CASF-2013 and CASF-2016.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Fig 5.

Comparison of prediction performance of EIGN, GIGN, and IGN on the CSAR-HIQ-set.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Fig 6.

Contribution analysis of the node feature components in the model.

(A) Ablation study. (B) GNNExplainer.

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Fig 7.

The impact of the proportion of similar samples in the training set on model prediction performance.

More »

Fig 7 Expand

Fig 8.

Visualization of the performance of EIGN, GIGN, and IGN on the PYGM target.

(A) Experimentally resolved protein structure. (B) Alphafold3-predicted protein structure.

More »

Fig 8 Expand

Fig 9.

Scatter plots of the prediction results of EIGN, GIGN, and IGN on the CDK2 target.

More »

Fig 9 Expand