Evaluation of predictions in the CASP10 model refinement category

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. Proteins 2014; 82(Suppl 2):98–111. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

[1]  Randy J. Read,et al.  Phaser crystallographic software , 2007, Journal of applied crystallography.

[2]  Mark A. Olson,et al.  Comparison between self‐guided Langevin dynamics and molecular dynamics simulations for structure refinement of protein loop conformations , 2011, J. Comput. Chem..

[3]  Matthew P Jacobson,et al.  Assessment of protein structure refinement in CASP9 , 2011, Proteins.

[4]  Debswapna Bhattacharya,et al.  3Drefine: Consistent protein structure refinement by optimizing hydrogen bonding network and atomic‐level energy minimization , 2013, Proteins.

[5]  Kenneth L. Ho,et al.  Significant reduction in errors associated with nonbonded contacts in protein crystal structures: automated all-atom refinement with PrimeX , 2012, Acta crystallographica. Section D, Biological crystallography.

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

[7]  Hao Fan,et al.  Mimicking the action of folding chaperones by Hamiltonian replica‐exchange molecular dynamics simulations: Application in the refinement of de novo models , 2012, Proteins.

[8]  Michael Levitt,et al.  KoBaMIN: a knowledge-based minimization web server for protein structure refinement , 2012, Nucleic Acids Res..

[9]  Manfred J. Sippl,et al.  Thirty years of environmental health research--and growing. , 1996, Nucleic Acids Res..

[10]  Zheng Yang,et al.  FlexE: Using elastic network models to compare models of protein structure. , 2012, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[11]  Yang Zhang,et al.  Automated protein structure modeling in CASP9 by I‐TASSER pipeline combined with QUARK‐based ab initio folding and FG‐MD‐based structure refinement , 2011, Proteins.

[12]  Krzysztof Fidelis,et al.  CASP prediction center infrastructure and evaluation measures in CASP10 and CASP ROLL , 2014, Proteins.

[13]  Vincent B. Chen,et al.  Correspondence e-mail: , 2000 .

[14]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[15]  Adam Zemla,et al.  LGA: a method for finding 3D similarities in protein structures , 2003, Nucleic Acids Res..

[16]  Torsten Schwede,et al.  Assessment of CASP7 predictions for template‐based modeling targets , 2007, Proteins.

[17]  Mark A Olson,et al.  Structure refinement of protein model decoys requires accurate side‐chain placement , 2013, Proteins.

[18]  Vahid Mirjalili,et al.  Protein Structure Refinement through Structure Selection and Averaging from Molecular Dynamics Ensembles. , 2013, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[19]  Chaok Seok,et al.  GalaxyWEB server for protein structure prediction and refinement , 2012, Nucleic Acids Res..

[20]  Anna Tramontano,et al.  Evaluation of protein structure prediction methods: Issues and strategies , 2011 .

[21]  R J Read,et al.  Pushing the boundaries of molecular replacement with maximum likelihood. , 2003, Acta crystallographica. Section D, Biological crystallography.

[22]  Stephen L. Mayo,et al.  GRID: A high‐resolution protein structure refinement algorithm , 2013, J. Comput. Chem..

[23]  Keehyoung Joo,et al.  Refinement of protein termini in template‐based modeling using conformational space annealing , 2011, Proteins.

[24]  A. Kolinski,et al.  Elastic network normal modes provide a basis for protein structure refinement. , 2012, The Journal of chemical physics.

[25]  Stefano Piana,et al.  Refinement of protein structure homology models via long, all‐atom molecular dynamics simulations , 2012, Proteins.

[26]  Yang Zhang,et al.  Atomic-level protein structure refinement using fragment-guided molecular dynamics conformation sampling. , 2011, Structure.

[27]  Chaok Seok,et al.  Refinement of unreliable local regions in template‐based protein models , 2012, Proteins.

[28]  David S. Goodsell,et al.  The RCSB Protein Data Bank: new resources for research and education , 2012, Nucleic Acids Res..

[29]  Christopher J. Williams,et al.  The other 90% of the protein: Assessment beyond the Cαs for CASP8 template‐based and high‐accuracy models , 2009, Proteins.

[30]  Abhinandan Jain,et al.  Structure refinement of protein low resolution models using the GNEIMO constrained dynamics method. , 2012, The journal of physical chemistry. B.

[31]  J. Thornton,et al.  Satisfying hydrogen bonding potential in proteins. , 1994, Journal of molecular biology.

[32]  MATTHEW S. LIN,et al.  Reliable protein structure refinement using a physical energy function , 2011, J. Comput. Chem..