Literature DB >> 11835495

CAFASP2: the second critical assessment of fully automated structure prediction methods.

D Fischer1, A Elofsson, L Rychlewski, F Pazos, A Valencia, B Rost, A R Ortiz, R L Dunbrack.   

Abstract

The results of the second Critical Assessment of Fully Automated Structure Prediction (CAFASP2) are presented. The goals of CAFASP are to (i) assess the performance of fully automatic web servers for structure prediction, by using the same blind prediction targets as those used at CASP4, (ii) inform the community of users about the capabilities of the servers, (iii) allow human groups participating in CASP to use and analyze the results of the servers while preparing their nonautomated predictions for CASP, and (iv) compare the performance of the automated servers to that of the human-expert groups of CASP. More than 30 servers from around the world participated in CAFASP2, covering all categories of structure prediction. The category with the largest participation was fold recognition, where 24 CAFASP servers filed predictions along with 103 other CASP human groups. The CAFASP evaluation indicated that it is difficult to establish an exact ranking of the servers because the number of prediction targets was relatively small and the differences among many servers were also small. However, roughly a group of five "best" fold recognition servers could be identified. The CASP evaluation identified the same group of top servers albeit with a slightly different relative order. Both evaluations ranked a semiautomated method named CAFASP-CONSENSUS, that filed predictions using the CAFASP results of the servers, above any of the individual servers. Although the predictions of the CAFASP servers were available to human CASP predictors before the CASP submission deadline, the CASP assessment identified only 11 human groups that performed better than the best server. Furthermore, about one fourth of the top 30 performing groups corresponded to automated servers. At least half of the top 11 groups corresponded to human groups that also had a server in CAFASP or to human groups that used the CAFASP results to prepare their predictions. In particular, the CAFASP-CONSENSUS group was ranked 7. This shows that the automated predictions of the servers can be very helpful to human predictors. We conclude that as servers continue to improve, they will become increasingly important in any prediction process, especially when dealing with genome-scale prediction tasks. We expect that in the near future, the performance difference between humans and machines will continue to narrow and that fully automated structure prediction will become an effective companion and complement to experimental structural genomics. Copyright 2002 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11835495     DOI: 10.1002/prot.10036

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proteins        ISSN: 0887-3585


  16 in total

1.  MODBASE, a database of annotated comparative protein structure models, and associated resources.

Authors:  Ursula Pieper; Narayanan Eswar; Hannes Braberg; M S Madhusudhan; Fred P Davis; Ashley C Stuart; Nebojsa Mirkovic; Andrea Rossi; Marc A Marti-Renom; Andras Fiser; Ben Webb; Daniel Greenblatt; Conrad C Huang; Thomas E Ferrin; Andrej Sali
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2004-01-01       Impact factor: 16.971

2.  Enlarged FAMSBASE: protein 3D structure models of genome sequences for 41 species.

Authors:  Akihiro Yamaguchi; Mitsuo Iwadate; Ei-ichiro Suzuki; Kei Yura; Shigetsugu Kawakita; Hideaki Umeyama; Mitiko Go
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2003-01-01       Impact factor: 16.971

3.  Rapid protein domain assignment from amino acid sequence using predicted secondary structure.

Authors:  Russell L Marsden; Liam J McGuffin; David T Jones
Journal:  Protein Sci       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 6.725

4.  ORFeus: Detection of distant homology using sequence profiles and predicted secondary structure.

Authors:  Krzysztof Ginalski; Jakub Pas; Lucjan S Wyrwicz; Marcin von Grotthuss; Janusz M Bujnicki; Leszek Rychlewski
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2003-07-01       Impact factor: 16.971

5.  Tools for comparative protein structure modeling and analysis.

Authors:  Narayanan Eswar; Bino John; Nebojsa Mirkovic; Andras Fiser; Valentin A Ilyin; Ursula Pieper; Ashley C Stuart; Marc A Marti-Renom; M S Madhusudhan; Bozidar Yerkovich; Andrej Sali
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2003-07-01       Impact factor: 16.971

6.  Detection of reliable and unexpected protein fold predictions using 3D-Jury.

Authors:  Krzysztof Ginalski; Leszek Rychlewski
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2003-07-01       Impact factor: 16.971

7.  GeneSilico protein structure prediction meta-server.

Authors:  Michal A Kurowski; Janusz M Bujnicki
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2003-07-01       Impact factor: 16.971

8.  Identification of correct regions in protein models using structural, alignment, and consensus information.

Authors:  Björn Wallner; Arne Elofsson
Journal:  Protein Sci       Date:  2006-03-07       Impact factor: 6.725

9.  Prediction of protein long-range contacts using an ensemble of genetic algorithm classifiers with sequence profile centers.

Authors:  Peng Chen; Jinyan Li
Journal:  BMC Struct Biol       Date:  2010-05-17

10.  Field evaluation ratified by transcript and computational analyses unveils myco-protective role of SUGARWIN proteins in sugarcane.

Authors:  Aqsa Parvaiz; Ghulam Mustafa; Hafiz Muhammad Walayat Ali Khan; Faiz Ahmad Joyia; Adnan Khan Niazi; Sultana Anwar; Muhammad Sarwar Khan
Journal:  3 Biotech       Date:  2019-09-28       Impact factor: 2.406

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.