Assessment of template‐based protein structure predictions in CASP10

Template‐based modeling (TBM) is a major component of the critical assessment of protein structure prediction (CASP). In CASP10, some 41,740 predicted models submitted by 150 predictor groups were assessed as TBM predictions. The accuracy of protein structure prediction was assessed by geometric comparison with experimental X‐ray crystal and NMR structures using a composite score that included both global alignment metrics and distance‐matrix–based metrics. These included GDT‐HA and GDC‐all global alignment scores, and the superimposition‐independent LDDT distance‐matrix–based score. In addition, a superimposition‐independent RPF metric, similar to that described previously for comparing protein models against experimental NMR data, was used for comparing predicted protein structure models against experimental protein structures. To score well on all four of these metrics, models must feature accurate predictions of both backbone and side‐chain conformations. Performance rankings were determined independently for server and the combined server plus human‐curated predictor groups. Final rankings were made using paired head‐to‐head Student's t‐test analysis of raw metric scores among the top 25 performing groups in each category. Proteins 2014; 82(Suppl 2):43–56. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

[1]  Anna Tramontano,et al.  Assessment of homology‐based predictions in CASP5 , 2003, Proteins.

[2]  Susanne Hertz,et al.  Statistical Mechanics Of Chain Molecules , 2016 .

[3]  Harald Schwalbe,et al.  Blind testing of routine, fully automated determination of protein structures from NMR data. , 2012, Structure.

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

[5]  Gaetano T Montelione,et al.  The expanded FindCore method for identification of a core atom set for assessment of protein structure prediction , 2014, Proteins.

[6]  Burkhard Rost,et al.  Evaluation of template‐based models in CASP8 with standard measures , 2009, Proteins.

[7]  Antonio Rosato,et al.  RPF: a quality assessment tool for protein NMR structures , 2012, Nucleic Acids Res..

[8]  Yuanpeng J Huang,et al.  Definition and classification of evaluation units for CASP10 , 2014, Proteins.

[9]  Hongjun Bai,et al.  Assessment of template‐free modeling in CASP10 and ROLL , 2014, Proteins.

[10]  Roland L Dunbrack,et al.  Outcome of a workshop on applications of protein models in biomedical research. , 2009, Structure.

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

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

[13]  Randy J Read,et al.  Domain definition and target classification for CASP7 , 2007, Proteins.

[14]  Marco Biasini,et al.  lDDT: a local superposition-free score for comparing protein structures and models using distance difference tests , 2013, Bioinform..

[15]  Iakes Ezkurdia,et al.  Target domain definition and classification in CASP8 , 2009, Proteins.

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

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

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

[19]  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.

[20]  Ian W. Davis,et al.  Structure validation by Cα geometry: ϕ,ψ and Cβ deviation , 2003, Proteins.

[21]  N. Grishin,et al.  CASP9 target classification , 2011, Proteins.

[22]  Johannes Söding,et al.  The HHpred interactive server for protein homology detection and structure prediction , 2005, Nucleic Acids Res..

[23]  Robert Powers,et al.  Protein NMR recall, precision, and F-measure scores (RPF scores): structure quality assessment measures based on information retrieval statistics. , 2005, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[24]  Krzysztof Fidelis,et al.  Protein structure prediction center in CASP8 , 2009, Proteins.

[25]  Jinfeng Liu,et al.  Novel leverage of structural genomics , 2007, Nature Biotechnology.

[26]  P. Bradley,et al.  High-resolution structure prediction and the crystallographic phase problem , 2007, Nature.

[27]  Burkhard Rost,et al.  Structural genomics is the largest contributor of novel structural leverage , 2009, Journal of Structural and Functional Genomics.

[28]  Anna Tramontano,et al.  Automatic procedure for using models of proteins in molecular replacement , 2006, Proteins.

[29]  Ines Thiele,et al.  Three-Dimensional Structural View of the Central Metabolic Network of Thermotoga maritima , 2009, Science.

[30]  Randy J Read,et al.  Assessment of CASP7 predictions in the high accuracy template‐based modeling category , 2007, Proteins.

[31]  Gaetano T. Montelione,et al.  The Protein Structure Initiative: achievements and visions for the future , 2012, F1000 biology reports.

[32]  B. Honig,et al.  Structure-based prediction of protein-protein interactions on a genome-wide scale , 2012, Nature.

[33]  Liang Tong,et al.  Targeting the Human Cancer Pathway Protein Interaction Network by Structural Genomics* , 2008, Molecular & Cellular Proteomics.

[34]  M. Sippl Recognition of errors in three‐dimensional structures of proteins , 1993, Proteins.

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

[36]  Randy J. Read,et al.  phenix.mr_rosetta: molecular replacement and model rebuilding with Phenix and Rosetta , 2012, Journal of Structural and Functional Genomics.

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