Literature DB >> 21554017

Finding nearly optimal GDT scores.

Shuai Cheng Li1, Dongbo Bu, Jinbo Xu, Ming Li.   

Abstract

Global Distance Test (GDT) is one of the commonly accepted measures to assess the quality of predicted protein structures. Given a set of distance thresholds, GDT maximizes the percentage of superimposed (or matched) residue pairs under each threshold, and reports the average of these percentages as the final score. The computation of GDT score was conjectured to be NP-hard. All available methods are heuristic and do not guarantee the optimality of scores. These heuristic strategies usually result in underestimated GDT scores. Contrary to the conjecture, the problem can be solved exactly in polynomial time, albeit the method would be too slow for practical usage. In this paper we propose an efficient tool called OptGDT to obtain GDT scores with theoretically guaranteed accuracies. Denote ℓ as the number of matched residue pairs found by OptGDT for a given threshold d. Let ℓ' be the optimal number of matched residues pairs for threshold d/(1 + ε), where ε is a parameter in our computation. OptGDT guarantees that ℓ ≥ ℓ'. We applied our tool to CASP8 (The eighth Critical Assessment of Structure Prediction Techniques) data. For 87.3% of the predicted models, better GDT scores are obtained when OptGDT is used. In some cases, the number of matched residue pairs were improved by at least 10%. The tool runs in time O(n³) log n/ε⁵) for a given threshold d and parameter ε. In the case of globular proteins, the tool can be improved to a randomized algorithm of O(n log² n) runtime with probability at least 1 - O(1/n). Released under the GPL license and downloadable from http://bioinformatics.uwaterloo.ca/∼scli/OptGDT/ .

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21554017      PMCID: PMC3607910          DOI: 10.1089/cmb.2010.0123

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Comput Biol        ISSN: 1066-5277            Impact factor:   1.479


  5 in total

1.  MaxSub: an automated measure for the assessment of protein structure prediction quality.

Authors:  N Siew; A Elofsson; L Rychlewski; D Fischer
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 6.937

2.  LGA: A method for finding 3D similarities in protein structures.

Authors:  Adam Zemla
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2003-07-01       Impact factor: 16.971

3.  Approximate protein structural alignment in polynomial time.

Authors:  Rachel Kolodny; Nathan Linial
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2004-08-10       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Scoring function for automated assessment of protein structure template quality.

Authors:  Yang Zhang; Jeffrey Skolnick
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2004-12-01

5.  Least-squares fitting of two 3-d point sets.

Authors:  K S Arun; T S Huang; S D Blostein
Journal:  IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell       Date:  1987-05       Impact factor: 6.226

  5 in total
  3 in total

1.  ClusCo: clustering and comparison of protein models.

Authors:  Michal Jamroz; Andrzej Kolinski
Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics       Date:  2013-02-22       Impact factor: 3.169

2.  A polynomial time algorithm for computing the area under a GDT curve.

Authors:  Aleksandar Poleksic
Journal:  Algorithms Mol Biol       Date:  2015-10-26       Impact factor: 1.405

3.  Identify High-Quality Protein Structural Models by Enhanced K-Means.

Authors:  Hongjie Wu; Haiou Li; Min Jiang; Cheng Chen; Qiang Lv; Chuang Wu
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2017-03-22       Impact factor: 3.411

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.