Dataset Information

ProQ2: estimation of model accuracy implemented in Rosetta.

ABSTRACT:

Motivation

Model quality assessment programs are used to predict the quality of modeled protein structures. They can be divided into two groups depending on the information they are using: ensemble methods using consensus of many alternative models and methods only using a single model to do its prediction. The consensus methods excel in achieving high correlations between prediction and true quality measures. However, they frequently fail to pick out the best possible model, nor can they be used to generate and score new structures. Single-model methods on the other hand do not have these inherent shortcomings and can be used both to sample new structures and to improve existing consensus methods.

Results

Here, we present an implementation of the ProQ2 program to estimate both local and global model accuracy as part of the Rosetta modeling suite. The current implementation does not only make it possible to run large batch runs locally, but it also opens up a whole new arena for conformational sampling using machine learned scoring functions and to incorporate model accuracy estimation in to various existing modeling schemes. ProQ2 participated in CASP11 and results from CASP11 are used to benchmark the current implementation. Based on results from CASP11 and CAMEO-QE, a continuous benchmark of quality estimation methods, it is clear that ProQ2 is the single-model method that performs best in both local and global model accuracy.

Availability and implementation

https://github.com/bjornwallner/ProQ_scripts

Contact

bjornw@ifm.liu.se

Supplementary information

Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

SUBMITTER: Uziela K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4848402 | biostudies-literature | 2016 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

ProQ2: estimation of model accuracy implemented in Rosetta.

Uziela Karolis K Wallner Björn B

Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) 20160105 9

<h4>Motivation</h4>Model quality assessment programs are used to predict the quality of modeled protein structures. They can be divided into two groups depending on the information they are using: ensemble methods using consensus of many alternative models and methods only using a single model to do its prediction. The consensus methods excel in achieving high correlations between prediction and true quality measures. However, they frequently fail to pick out the best possible model, nor can the ...[more]

PMID: 26733453

Similar Datasets

Project description:In CASP15, there was a greater emphasis on multimeric modeling than in previous experiments, with assembly structures nearly doubling in number (41 up from 22) since the previous round. CASP15 also included a new estimation of model accuracy (EMA) category in recognition of the importance of objective quality assessment (QA) for quaternary structure models. ModFOLDdock is a multimeric model QA server developed by the McGuffin group at the University of Reading, which brings together a range of single-model, clustering, and deep learning methods to form a consensus of approaches. For CASP15, three variants of ModFOLDdock were developed to optimize for the different facets of the quality estimation problem. The standard ModFOLDdock variant produced predicted scores optimized for positive linear correlations with the observed scores. The ModFOLDdockR variant produced predicted scores optimized for ranking, that is, the top-ranked models have the highest accuracy. In addition, the ModFOLDdockS variant used a quasi-single model approach to score each model on an individual basis. The scores from all three variants achieved strongly positive Pearson correlation coefficients with the CASP observed scores (oligo-lDDT) in excess of 0.70, which were maintained across both homomeric and heteromeric model populations. In addition, at least one of the ModFOLDdock variants was consistently ranked in the top two methods across all three EMA categories. Specifically, for overall global fold prediction accuracy, ModFOLDdock placed second and ModFOLDdockR placed third; for overall interface quality prediction accuracy, ModFOLDdockR, ModFOLDdock, and ModFOLDdockS were placed above all other predictor methods, and ModFOLDdockR and ModFOLDdockS were placed second and third respectively for individual residue confidence scores. The ModFOLDdock server is available at: https://www.reading.ac.uk/bioinf/ModFOLDdock/. ModFOLDdock is also available as part of the MultiFOLD docker package: https://hub.docker.com/r/mcguffin/multifold.

Project description:Estimates of prehospital transport times are an important part of emergency care system research and planning; however, the accuracy of these estimates is unknown. The authors examined the accuracy of three estimation methods against observed transport times in a large cohort of prehospital patient transports.This was a validation study using prehospital records in King County, Washington, and southwestern Pennsylvania from 2002 to 2006 and 2005 to 2011, respectively. Transport time estimates were generated using three methods: linear arc distance, Google Maps, and ArcGIS Network Analyst. Estimation error, defined as the absolute difference between observed and estimated transport time, was assessed, as well as the proportion of estimated times that were within specified error thresholds. Based on the primary results, a regression estimate was used that incorporated population density, time of day, and season to assess improved accuracy. Finally, hospital catchment areas were compared using each method with a fixed drive time.The authors analyzed 29,935 prehospital transports to 44 hospitals. The mean (± standard deviation [±SD]) absolute error was 4.8 (±7.3) minutes using linear arc, 3.5 (±5.4) minutes using Google Maps, and 4.4 (±5.7) minutes using ArcGIS. All pairwise comparisons were statistically significant (p < 0.01). Estimation accuracy was lower for each method among transports more than 20 minutes (mean [±SD] absolute error was 12.7 [±11.7] minutes for linear arc, 9.8 [±10.5] minutes for Google Maps, and 11.6 [±10.9] minutes for ArcGIS). Estimates were within 5 minutes of observed transport time for 79% of linear arc estimates, 86.6% of Google Maps estimates, and 81.3% of ArcGIS estimates. The regression-based approach did not substantially improve estimation. There were large differences in hospital catchment areas estimated by each method.Route-based transport time estimates demonstrate moderate accuracy. These methods can be valuable for informing a host of decisions related to the system organization and patient access to emergency medical care; however, they should be employed with sensitivity to their limitations.

Dataset Information

ProQ2: estimation of model accuracy implemented in Rosetta.

Motivation

Results

Availability and implementation

Contact

Supplementary information

Publications

ProQ2: estimation of model accuracy implemented in Rosetta.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets