A measure of progress in fold recognition?

We present a retrospective analysis of CASP3 threading predictions, applying evaluation and assessment criteria used at CASP2. Our purpose is twofold. First, we wish to ask whether measures of model accuracy are comparable between CASP3 and CASP2, even though they have been calculated differently. We find that these quantities are effectively the same, and that either may be used to compare model accuracy. Secondly, we wish to assess progress in fold recognition by comparing the numbers of CASP2 and CASP3 models that cross specific accuracy thresholds. We find that the number of accurate models at CASP3 drops sharply as the targets become more difficult, with less extensive similarity to known structures, exactly the pattern seen at CASP2. CASP3 teams do not seem to have predicted accurate models for targets of greater difficulty, and for a given difficulty range the best CASP3 models seem no more accurate than the best models at CASP2. At CASP3, however, we find greater numbers of accurate models for medium‐difficulty targets, with extensive similarity to a known structure but no shared sequence motifs. Threading methods would appear to have become more reliable for modeling based on remote evolutionary relationships. Proteins Suppl 1999;3:218–225. Published 1999 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

[1]  W R Taylor,et al.  SSAP: sequential structure alignment program for protein structure comparison. , 1996, Methods in enzymology.

[2]  W A Koppensteiner,et al.  An attempt to analyse progress in fold recognition from CASP1 to CASP3 , 1999, Proteins.

[3]  D. T. Jones,et al.  Successful recognition of protein folds using threading methods biased by sequence similarity and predicted secondary structure , 1999, Proteins.

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

[5]  S H Bryant,et al.  Measures of threading specificity and accuracy , 1997, Proteins.

[6]  J F Gibrat,et al.  Surprising similarities in structure comparison. , 1996, Current opinion in structural biology.

[7]  S H Bryant,et al.  A measure of success in fold recognition. , 1997, Trends in biochemical sciences.

[8]  A. Panchenko,et al.  Threading with explicit models for evolutionary conservation of structure and sequence , 1999, Proteins.

[9]  S. Bryant,et al.  Critical assessment of methods of protein structure prediction (CASP): Round II , 1997, Proteins.

[10]  Amos Bairoch,et al.  The PROSITE database, its status in 1999 , 1999, Nucleic Acids Res..

[11]  A. Murzin.  Structure classification‐based assessment of CASP3 predictions for the fold recognition targets , 1999, Proteins.

[12]  Thomas L. Madden,et al.  Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs. , 1997, Nucleic acids research.

[13]  C. Walsh,et al.  Mutational analysis of potential zinc-binding residues in the active site of the enterococcal D-Ala-D-Ala dipeptidase VanX. , 1997, Biochemistry.

[14]  M Levitt,et al.  Competitive assessment of protein fold recognition and alignment accuracy , 1997, Proteins.

[15]  S H Bryant,et al.  A retrospective analysis of CASP2 threading predictions , 1997, Proteins.

[16]  Tim J. P. Hubbard,et al.  SCOP: a structural classification of proteins database , 1998, Nucleic Acids Res..

[17]  M J Sippl,et al.  Optimum superimposition of protein structures: ambiguities and implications. , 1996, Folding & design.

[18]  A G Murzin,et al.  Distant homology recognition using structural classification of proteins , 1997, Proteins.

[19]  C Sander,et al.  Mapping the Protein Universe , 1996, Science.