Literature DB >> 18004754

Ranking predicted protein structures with support vector regression.

Jian Qiu1, Will Sheffler, David Baker, William Stafford Noble.   

Abstract

Protein structure prediction is an important problem of both intellectual and practical interest. Most protein structure prediction approaches generate multiple candidate models first, and then use a scoring function to select the best model among these candidates. In this work, we develop a scoring function using support vector regression (SVR). Both consensus-based features and features from individual structures are extracted from a training data set containing native protein structures and predicted structural models submitted to CASP5 and CASP6. The SVR learns a scoring function that is a linear combination of these features. We test this scoring function on two data sets. First, when used to rank server models submitted to CASP7, the SVR score selects predictions that are comparable to the best performing server in CASP7, Zhang-Server, and significantly better than all the other servers. Even if the SVR score is not allowed to select Zhang-Server models, the SVR score still selects predictions that are significantly better than all the other servers. In addition, the SVR is able to select significantly better models and yield significantly better Pearson correlation coefficients than the two best Quality Assessment groups in CASP7, QA556 (LEE), and QA634 (Pcons). Second, this work aims to improve the ability of the Robetta server to select best models, and hence we evaluate the performance of the SVR score on ranking the Robetta server template-based models for the CASP7 targets. The SVR selects significantly better models than the Robetta K*Sync consensus alignment score. 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18004754     DOI: 10.1002/prot.21809

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


  30 in total

1.  DL-PRO: A Novel Deep Learning Method for Protein Model Quality Assessment.

Authors:  Son P Nguyen; Yi Shang; Dong Xu
Journal:  Proc Int Jt Conf Neural Netw       Date:  2014-07

2.  An iterative self-refining and self-evaluating approach for protein model quality estimation.

Authors:  Zheng Wang; Jianlin Cheng
Journal:  Protein Sci       Date:  2011-11-23       Impact factor: 6.725

Review 3.  FINDSITE: a combined evolution/structure-based approach to protein function prediction.

Authors:  Jeffrey Skolnick; Michal Brylinski
Journal:  Brief Bioinform       Date:  2009-03-26       Impact factor: 11.622

4.  Applying undertaker cost functions to model quality assessment.

Authors:  John Archie; Kevin Karplus
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2009-05-15

5.  Model quality assessment using distance constraints from alignments.

Authors:  Martin Paluszewski; Kevin Karplus
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2009-05-15

6.  Applying Undertaker to quality assessment.

Authors:  John G Archie; Martin Paluszewski; Kevin Karplus
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2009

7.  How well can the accuracy of comparative protein structure models be predicted?

Authors:  David Eramian; Narayanan Eswar; Min-Yi Shen; Andrej Sali
Journal:  Protein Sci       Date:  2008-10-01       Impact factor: 6.725

8.  Using multiple templates to improve quality of homology models in automated homology modeling.

Authors:  Per Larsson; Björn Wallner; Erik Lindahl; Arne Elofsson
Journal:  Protein Sci       Date:  2008-04-25       Impact factor: 6.725

9.  Fast geometric consensus approach for protein model quality assessment.

Authors:  Rafal Adamczak; Jaroslaw Pillardy; Brinda K Vallat; Jaroslaw Meller
Journal:  J Comput Biol       Date:  2011-01-18       Impact factor: 1.479

10.  NEW MDS AND CLUSTERING BASED ALGORITHMS FOR PROTEIN MODEL QUALITY ASSESSMENT AND SELECTION.

Authors:  Qingguo Wang; Charles Shang; Dong Xu; Yi Shang
Journal:  Int J Artif Intell Tools       Date:  2013-10-25       Impact factor: 1.208

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.