Literature DB >> 29044714

Definition and classification of evaluation units for tertiary structure prediction in CASP12 facilitated through semi-automated metrics.

Luciano A Abriata1, Lisa N Kinch2, Giorgio E Tamò1, Bohdan Monastyrskyy3, Andriy Kryshtafovych3, Matteo Dal Peraro1.   

Abstract

For assessment purposes, CASP targets are split into evaluation units. We herein present the official definition of CASP12 evaluation units (EUs) and their classification into difficulty categories. Each target can be evaluated as one EU (the whole target) or/and several EUs (separate structural domains or groups of structural domains). The specific scenario for a target split is determined by the domain organization of available templates, the difference in server performance on separate domains versus combination of the domains, and visual inspection. In the end, 71 targets were split into 96 EUs. Classification of the EUs into difficulty categories was done semi-automatically with the assistance of metrics provided by the Prediction Center. These metrics account for sequence and structural similarities of the EUs to potential structural templates from the Protein Data Bank, and for the baseline performance of automated server predictions. The metrics readily separate the 96 EUs into 38 EUs that should be straightforward for template-based modeling (TBM) and 39 that are expected to be hard for homology modeling and are thus left for free modeling (FM). The remaining 19 borderline evaluation units were dubbed FM/TBM, and were inspected case by case. The article also overviews structural and evolutionary features of selected targets relevant to our accompanying article presenting the assessment of FM and FM/TBM predictions, and overviews structural features of the hardest evaluation units from the FM category. We finally suggest improvements for the EU definition and classification procedures.
© 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  contact prediction; critical assessment of structure prediction; homology modeling; residue coevolution; sequence alignment; structural bioinformatics

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29044714     DOI: 10.1002/prot.25403

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


  8 in total

1.  Continuous Automated Model EvaluatiOn (CAMEO) complementing the critical assessment of structure prediction in CASP12.

Authors:  Jürgen Haas; Alessandro Barbato; Dario Behringer; Gabriel Studer; Steven Roth; Martino Bertoni; Khaled Mostaguir; Rafal Gumienny; Torsten Schwede
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2017-12-17

2.  Using steered molecular dynamic tension for assessing quality of computational protein structure models.

Authors:  Lyman Monroe; Daisuke Kihara
Journal:  J Comput Chem       Date:  2022-04-27       Impact factor: 3.672

3.  CASP13 target classification into tertiary structure prediction categories.

Authors:  Lisa N Kinch; Andriy Kryshtafovych; Bohdan Monastyrskyy; Nick V Grishin
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2019-07-24

4.  Topology evaluation of models for difficult targets in the 14th round of the critical assessment of protein structure prediction (CASP14).

Authors:  Lisa N Kinch; Jimin Pei; Andriy Kryshtafovych; R Dustin Schaeffer; Nick V Grishin
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2021-07-23

5.  Improved Protein Model Quality Assessment By Integrating Sequential And Pairwise Features Using Deep Learning.

Authors:  Xiaoyang Jing; Jinbo Xu
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2020-12-16       Impact factor: 6.937

6.  Electron transfer in an acidophilic bacterium: interaction between a diheme cytochrome and a cupredoxin.

Authors:  X Wang; M Roger; R Clément; S Lecomte; F Biaso; L A Abriata; P Mansuelle; I Mazurenko; M T Giudici-Orticoni; E Lojou; M Ilbert
Journal:  Chem Sci       Date:  2018-05-01       Impact factor: 9.825

7.  Improved Consensus-Fragment Selection in Template-Assisted Prediction of Protein Structures with the UNRES Force Field in CASP13.

Authors:  Agnieszka S Karczyńska; Karolina Ziȩba; Urszula Uciechowska; Magdalena A Mozolewska; Paweł Krupa; Emilia A Lubecka; Agnieszka G Lipska; Celina Sikorska; Sergey A Samsonov; Adam K Sieradzan; Artur Giełdoń; Adam Liwo; Rafał Ślusarz; Magdalena Ślusarz; Jooyoung Lee; Keehyoung Joo; Cezary Czaplewski
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2020-02-11       Impact factor: 4.956

8.  Target classification in the 14th round of the critical assessment of protein structure prediction (CASP14).

Authors:  Lisa N Kinch; R Dustin Schaeffer; Andriy Kryshtafovych; Nick V Grishin
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2021-08-19
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.