Critical assessment of methods of protein structure prediction (CASP)—Round XII

This article reports the outcome of the 12th round of Critical Assessment of Structure Prediction (CASP12), held in 2016. CASP is a community experiment to determine the state of the art in modeling protein structure from amino acid sequence. Participants are provided sequence information and in turn provide protein structure models and related information. Analysis of the submitted structures by independent assessors provides a comprehensive picture of the capabilities of current methods, and allows progress to be identified. This was again an exciting round of CASP, with significant advances in 4 areas: (i) The use of new methods for predicting three‐dimensional contacts led to a two‐fold improvement in contact accuracy. (ii) As a consequence, model accuracy for proteins where no template was available improved dramatically. (iii) Models based on a structural template showed overall improvement in accuracy. (iv) Methods for estimating the accuracy of a model continued to improve. CASP continued to develop new areas: (i) Assessing methods for building quaternary structure models, including an expansion of the collaboration between CASP and CAPRI. (ii) Modeling with the aid of experimental data was extended to include SAXS data, as well as again using chemical cross‐linking information. (iii) A team of assessors evaluated the suitability of models for a range of applications, including mutation interpretation, analysis of ligand binding properties, and identification of interfaces. This article describes the experiment and summarizes the results. The rest of this special issue of PROTEINS contains papers describing CASP12 results and assessments in more detail.

[1]  Yang Zhang,et al.  Predicting the Effect of Mutations on Protein-Protein Binding Interactions through Structure-Based Interface Profiles , 2015, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[2]  A. Tramontano,et al.  Critical assessment of methods of protein structure prediction: Progress and new directions in round XI , 2016, Proteins.

[3]  A. Valencia,et al.  Emerging methods in protein co-evolution , 2013, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[4]  Torsten Schwede,et al.  Assessment of protein assembly prediction in CASP12 , 2018, Proteins.

[5]  A. Sali,et al.  Protein Structure Prediction and Structural Genomics , 2001, Science.

[6]  Juri Rappsilber,et al.  Small angle X‐ray scattering and cross‐linking for data assisted protein structure prediction in CASP 12 with prospects for improved accuracy , 2018, Proteins.

[7]  Richard Bonneau,et al.  Ab initio protein structure prediction: progress and prospects. , 2001, Annual review of biophysics and biomolecular structure.

[8]  Janet M Thornton,et al.  Anna Tramontano 1957–2017 , 2017, Nature Structural &Molecular Biology.

[9]  Haruki Nakamura,et al.  Outcome of the First wwPDB Hybrid/Integrative Methods Task Force Workshop. , 2015, Structure.

[10]  A. Biegert,et al.  HHblits: lightning-fast iterative protein sequence searching by HMM-HMM alignment , 2011, Nature Methods.

[11]  Johannes Söding,et al.  Fast and accurate automatic structure prediction with HHpred , 2009, Proteins.

[12]  Anna Tramontano,et al.  Assessment of the assessment: Evaluation of the model quality estimates in CASP10 , 2014, Proteins.

[13]  Anna Tramontano,et al.  Assessment of predictions in the model quality assessment category , 2007, Proteins.

[14]  Krzysztof Fidelis,et al.  CASP11 statistics and the prediction center evaluation system , 2016, Proteins.

[15]  Oliver Brock,et al.  Blind testing of cross‐linking/mass spectrometry hybrid methods in CASP11 , 2016, Proteins.

[16]  John Moult,et al.  Comparative modeling in structural genomics. , 2008, Structure.

[17]  T. Hubbard,et al.  Critical assessment of methods of protein structure prediction (CASP): Round III , 1999, Proteins.

[18]  Matthew Mort,et al.  Biological and functional relevance of CASP predictions , 2017, Proteins.

[19]  Francesco Luigi Gervasio,et al.  Assessment of the model refinement category in CASP12 , 2018, Proteins.

[20]  Roland L Dunbrack,et al.  Biological function derived from predicted structures in CASP11 , 2016, Proteins.

[21]  M. Sternberg,et al.  Protein–protein interaction sites are hot spots for disease‐associated nonsynonymous SNPs , 2012, Human mutation.

[22]  Torsten Schwede,et al.  Assessment of model accuracy estimations in CASP12 , 2018, Proteins.

[23]  K. Dill,et al.  Assessment of the protein‐structure refinement category in CASP8 , 2009, Proteins.

[24]  Lisa N Kinch,et al.  Definition and classification of evaluation units for tertiary structure prediction in CASP12 facilitated through semi‐automated metrics , 2018, Proteins.

[25]  M. Nardini,et al.  Target highlights from the first post‐PSI CASP experiment (CASP12, May–August 2016) , 2018, Proteins.

[26]  Anna Tramontano,et al.  Methods of model accuracy estimation can help selecting the best models from decoy sets: Assessment of model accuracy estimations in CASP11 , 2016, Proteins.

[27]  Krzysztof Fidelis,et al.  CASP9 results compared to those of previous casp experiments , 2011, Proteins.

[28]  Torsten Schwede,et al.  The SWISS-MODEL Repository—new features and functionality , 2016, Nucleic Acids Res..

[29]  Anna Tramontano,et al.  Evaluation of CASP8 model quality predictions , 2009, Proteins.

[30]  Sean R. Collins,et al.  Global landscape of protein complexes in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae , 2006, Nature.

[31]  Rafael C. Jimenez,et al.  The MIntAct project—IntAct as a common curation platform for 11 molecular interaction databases , 2013, Nucleic Acids Res..

[32]  Russ B. Altman,et al.  Using Multiple Microenvironments to Find Similar Ligand-Binding Sites: Application to Kinase Inhibitor Binding , 2011, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[33]  Torsten Schwede,et al.  Assessment of template based protein structure predictions in CASP9 , 2011, Proteins.

[34]  Andriy Kryshtafovych,et al.  Assessment of hard target modeling in CASP12 reveals an emerging role of alignment‐based contact prediction methods , 2018, Proteins.

[35]  Krzysztof Fidelis,et al.  CASP10 results compared to those of previous CASP experiments , 2014, Proteins.

[36]  Anna Tramontano,et al.  Evaluation of model quality predictions in CASP9 , 2011, Proteins.

[37]  Lisa N Kinch,et al.  Evaluation of free modeling targets in CASP11 and ROLL , 2016, Proteins.

[38]  Anna Tramontano,et al.  Evaluation of the template‐based modeling in CASP12 , 2018, Proteins.

[39]  Andriy Kryshtafovych,et al.  Assessment of contact predictions in CASP12: Co‐evolution and deep learning coming of age , 2017, Proteins.

[40]  Sameer Velankar,et al.  The challenge of modeling protein assemblies: the CASP12‐CAPRI experiment , 2018, Proteins.

[41]  Daisuke Kihara,et al.  Prediction of homoprotein and heteroprotein complexes by protein docking and template‐based modeling: A CASP‐CAPRI experiment , 2016, Proteins.