Literature DB >> 27488386

A comparison of different functions for predicted protein model quality assessment.

Juan Li1, Huisheng Fang2.   

Abstract

In protein structure prediction, a considerable number of models are usually produced by either the Template-Based Method (TBM) or the ab initio prediction. The purpose of this study is to find the critical parameter in assessing the quality of the predicted models. A non-redundant template library was developed and 138 target sequences were modeled. The target sequences were all distant from the proteins in the template library and were aligned with template library proteins on the basis of the transformation matrix. The quality of each model was first assessed with QMEAN and its six parameters, which are C_β interaction energy (C_beta), all-atom pairwise energy (PE), solvation energy (SE), torsion angle energy (TAE), secondary structure agreement (SSA), and solvent accessibility agreement (SAE). Finally, the alignment score (score) was also used to assess the quality of model. Hence, a total of eight parameters (i.e., QMEAN, C_beta, PE, SE, TAE, SSA, SAE, score) were independently used to assess the quality of each model. The results indicate that SSA is the best parameter to estimate the quality of the model.

Keywords:  Protein structure prediction; QMEAN; Secondary structure agreement

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27488386     DOI: 10.1007/s10822-016-9924-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des        ISSN: 0920-654X            Impact factor:   3.686


  30 in total

1.  Progress in protein structure prediction.

Authors:  A G Murzin
Journal:  Nat Struct Biol       Date:  2001-02

2.  Prospects for ab initio protein structural genomics.

Authors:  K T Simons; C Strauss; D Baker
Journal:  J Mol Biol       Date:  2001-03-09       Impact factor: 5.469

3.  Recent improvements in prediction of protein structure by global optimization of a potential energy function.

Authors:  J Pillardy; C Czaplewski; A Liwo; J Lee; D R Ripoll; R Kaźmierkiewicz; S Oldziej; W J Wedemeyer; K D Gibson; Y A Arnautova; J Saunders; Y J Ye; H A Scheraga
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2001-02-20       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  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

5.  In silico protein recombination: enhancing template and sequence alignment selection for comparative protein modelling.

Authors:  Bruno Contreras-Moreira; Paul W Fitzjohn; Paul A Bates
Journal:  J Mol Biol       Date:  2003-05-02       Impact factor: 5.469

6.  Comparative protein structure modeling by iterative alignment, model building and model assessment.

Authors:  Bino John; Andrej Sali
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2003-07-15       Impact factor: 16.971

7.  Automated structure prediction of weakly homologous proteins on a genomic scale.

Authors:  Yang Zhang; Jeffrey Skolnick
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2004-05-04       Impact factor: 11.205

8.  QMEAN: A comprehensive scoring function for model quality assessment.

Authors:  Pascal Benkert; Silvio C E Tosatto; Dietmar Schomburg
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2008-04

9.  A unified statistical framework for sequence comparison and structure comparison.

Authors:  M Levitt; M Gerstein
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1998-05-26       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 10.  Protein structure prediction and model quality assessment.

Authors:  Andriy Kryshtafovych; Krzysztof Fidelis
Journal:  Drug Discov Today       Date:  2009-01-15       Impact factor: 7.851

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.