We’ve recently replaced Rapid PREreviews with Structured PREreviews.
You can write a Structured PREreview now.
We’ll be updating older Rapid PREreviews like these soon.
| Question | Yes | Unsure | N/A | No |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Are the findings novel? | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Are the results likely to lead to future research? | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Is sufficient detail provided to allow reproduction of the study? | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Are the methods and statistics appropriate for the analysis? | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Are the principal conclusions supported by the data and analysis? | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Does the manuscript discuss limitations? | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Have the authors adequately discussed ethical concerns? | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Does the manuscript include new data? | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Are the data used in the manuscript available? | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Is the code used in the manuscript available? | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Would you recommend this manuscript to others? | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Do you recommend this manuscript for peer review? | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
The authors seek out to improve Alphafold (AF) predictions with additional data in an iterative manner. In the specific case here, CryoEM maps. Alphafold predictions are still sub-par for all but approximately 36% of residues with a pLTTD measure below 90 (see [1] and references therein). a pLTTD…