Prediction of global and local model quality in CASP7 using Pcons and ProQ

The ability to rank and select the best model is important in protein structure prediction. Model Quality Assessment Programs (MQAPs) are programs developed to perform this task. They can be divided into three categories based on the information they use. Consensus based methods use the similarity to other models, structure‐based methods use features calculated from the structure and evolutionary based methods use the sequence similarity between a model and a template. These methods can be trained to predict the overall global quality of a model, that is, how much a model is likely to differ from the native structure. The methods can also be trained to pinpoint which local regions in a model are likely to be incorrect. In CASP7, we participated with three predictors of global and four of local quality using information from the three categories described above. The result shows that the MQAP using consensus, Pcons, was significantly better at predicting both global and local quality compared with MQAPs using only structure or sequence based information. Proteins 2007. © 2007 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

[1]  D. Eisenberg,et al.  Assessment of protein models with three-dimensional profiles , 1992, Nature.

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

[3]  M. Levitt,et al.  Energy functions that discriminate X-ray and near native folds from well-constructed decoys. , 1996, Journal of molecular biology.

[4]  M. Sippl.  Calculation of conformational ensembles from potentials of mean force. An approach to the knowledge-based prediction of local structures in globular proteins. , 1990, Journal of molecular biology.

[5]  Arne Elofsson,et al.  A study of quality measures for protein threading models , 2001, BMC Bioinformatics.

[6]  Arne Elofsson,et al.  Automatic consensus‐based fold recognition using Pcons, ProQ, and Pmodeller , 2003, Proteins.

[7]  Yang Zhang,et al.  Scoring function for automated assessment of protein structure template quality , 2004, Proteins.

[8]  Daniel Fischer,et al.  Servers for protein structure prediction. , 2006, Current opinion in structural biology.

[9]  M. Karplus,et al.  Discrimination of the native from misfolded protein models with an energy function including implicit solvation. , 1999, Journal of molecular biology.

[10]  Arne Elofsson,et al.  3D-Jury: A Simple Approach to Improve Protein Structure Predictions , 2003, Bioinform..

[11]  Marcin Feder,et al.  A “FRankenstein's monster” approach to comparative modeling: Merging the finest fragments of Fold‐Recognition models and iterative model refinement aided by 3D structure evaluation , 2003, Proteins.

[12]  A. Elofsson,et al.  Can correct protein models be identified? , 2003, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[13]  Arne Elofsson,et al.  MaxSub: an automated measure for the assessment of protein structure prediction quality , 2000, Bioinform..

[14]  Jakub Pas,et al.  Application of 3D‐Jury, GRDB, and Verify3D in fold recognition , 2003, Proteins.

[15]  E S Huang,et al.  Factors affecting the ability of energy functions to discriminate correct from incorrect folds. , 1997, Journal of molecular biology.

[16]  Anthony K. Felts,et al.  Distinguishing native conformations of proteins from decoys with an effective free energy estimator based on the OPLS all‐atom force field and the surface generalized born solvent model , 2002, Proteins.

[17]  D. Eisenberg,et al.  VERIFY3D: assessment of protein models with three-dimensional profiles. , 1997, Methods in enzymology.

[18]  Arne Elofsson,et al.  Identification of correct regions in protein models using structural, alignment, and consensus information , 2006, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[19]  J Lundström,et al.  Pcons: A neural‐network–based consensus predictor that improves fold recognition , 2001, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[20]  Daniel Fischer,et al.  3D‐SHOTGUN: A novel, cooperative, fold‐recognition meta‐predictor , 2003, Proteins.

[21]  S Vajda,et al.  Discrimination of near‐native protein structures from misfolded models by empirical free energy functions , 2000, Proteins.

[22]  M Vendruscolo,et al.  Can a pairwise contact potential stabilize native protein folds against decoys obtained by threading? , 2000, Proteins.

[23]  Arne Elofsson,et al.  Pcons.net: protein structure prediction meta server , 2007, Nucleic Acids Res..

[24]  Arne Elofsson,et al.  Pcons5: combining consensus, structural evaluation and fold recognition scores , 2005, Bioinform..

[25]  B. Honig,et al.  Free energy determinants of tertiary structure and the evaluation of protein models , 2000, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[26]  C Venclovas,et al.  Processing and analysis of CASP3 protein structure predictions , 1999, Proteins.

[27]  John Maddox.  The endless search for primality , 1992, Nature.

[28]  J. Hermans,et al.  Free energies of protein decoys provide insight into determinants of protein stability , 2001, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[29]  Charles L. Brooks,et al.  Identifying native‐like protein structures using physics‐based potentials , 2002, J. Comput. Chem..