Dataset Information

Evaluation of predictions in the CASP10 model refinement category.

ABSTRACT: Here we report on the assessment results of the third experiment to evaluate the state of the art in protein model refinement, where participants were invited to improve the accuracy of initial protein models for 27 targets. Using an array of complementary evaluation measures, we find that five groups performed better than the naïve (null) method-a marked improvement over CASP9, although only three were significantly better. The leading groups also demonstrated the ability to consistently improve both backbone and side chain positioning, while other groups reliably enhanced other aspects of protein physicality. The top-ranked group succeeded in improving the backbone conformation in almost 90% of targets, suggesting a strategy that for the first time in CASP refinement is successful in a clear majority of cases. A number of issues remain unsolved: the majority of groups still fail to improve the quality of the starting models; even successful groups are only able to make modest improvements; and no prediction is more similar to the native structure than to the starting model. Successful refinement attempts also often go unrecognized, as suggested by the relatively larger improvements when predictions not submitted as model 1 are also considered.

SUBMITTER: Nugent T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4282348 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluation of predictions in the CASP10 model refinement category.

Nugent Timothy T Cozzetto Domenico D Jones David T DT

Proteins 20140103

Here we report on the assessment results of the third experiment to evaluate the state of the art in protein model refinement, where participants were invited to improve the accuracy of initial protein models for 27 targets. Using an array of complementary evaluation measures, we find that five groups performed better than the naïve (null) method-a marked improvement over CASP9, although only three were significantly better. The leading groups also demonstrated the ability to consistently improv ...[more]

PMID: 23900810

Similar Datasets

Project description:The article presents an assessment of the ability of the thirty-seven model quality assessment (MQA) methods participating in CASP10 to provide an a priori estimation of the quality of structural models, and of the 67 tertiary structure prediction groups to provide confidence estimates for their predicted coordinates. The assessment of MQA predictors is based on the methods used in previous CASPs, such as correlation between the predicted and observed quality of the models (both at the global and local levels), accuracy of methods in distinguishing between good and bad models as well as good and bad regions within them, and ability to identify the best models in the decoy sets. Several numerical evaluations were used in our analysis for the first time, such as comparison of global and local quality predictors with reference (baseline) predictors and a ROC analysis of the predictors' ability to differentiate between the well and poorly modeled regions. For the evaluation of the reliability of self-assessment of the coordinate errors, we used the correlation between the predicted and observed deviations of the coordinates and a ROC analysis of correctly identified errors in the models. A modified two-stage procedure for testing MQA methods in CASP10 whereby a small number of models spanning the whole range of model accuracy was released first followed by the release of a larger number of models of more uniform quality, allowed a more thorough analysis of abilities and inabilities of different types of methods. Clustering methods were shown to have an advantage over the single- and quasi-single- model methods on the larger datasets. At the same time, the evaluation revealed that the size of the dataset has smaller influence on the global quality assessment scores (for both clustering and nonclustering methods), than its diversity. Narrowing the quality range of the assessed models caused significant decrease in accuracy of ranking for global quality predictors but essentially did not change the results for local predictors. Self-assessment error estimates submitted by the majority of groups were poor overall, with two research groups showing significantly better results than the remaining ones.

Dataset Information

Evaluation of predictions in the CASP10 model refinement category.

Publications

Evaluation of predictions in the CASP10 model refinement category.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets