Literature DB >> 31571280

Introducing "best single template" models as reference baseline for the Continuous Automated Model Evaluation (CAMEO).

Juergen Haas1, Rafal Gumienny2, Alessandro Barbato3, Flavio Ackermann1, Gerardo Tauriello1, Martino Bertoni3, Gabriel Studer1, Anna Smolinski1, Torsten Schwede1.   

Abstract

Critical blind assessment of structure prediction techniques is crucial for the scientific community to establish the state of the art, identify bottlenecks, and guide future developments. In Critical Assessment of Techniques in Structure Prediction (CASP), human experts assess the performance of participating methods in relation to the difficulty of the prediction task in a biennial experiment on approximately 100 targets. Yet, the development of automated computational modeling methods requires more frequent evaluation cycles and larger sets of data. The "Continuous Automated Model EvaluatiOn (CAMEO)" platform complements CASP by conducting fully automated blind prediction evaluations based on the weekly pre-release of sequences of those structures, which are going to be published in the next release of the Protein Data Bank (PDB). Each week, CAMEO publishes benchmarking results for predictions corresponding to a set of about 20 targets collected during a 4-day prediction window. CAMEO benchmarking data are generated consistently for all methods at the same point in time, enabling developers to cross-validate their method's performance, and referring to their results in publications. Many successful participants of CASP have used CAMEO-either by directly benchmarking their methods within the system or by comparing their own performance to CAMEO reference data. CAMEO offers a variety of scores reflecting different aspects of structure modeling, for example, binding site accuracy, homo-oligomer interface quality, or accuracy of local model confidence estimates. By introducing the "bestSingleTemplate" method based on structure superpositions as a reference for the accuracy of 3D modeling predictions, CAMEO facilitates objective comparison of techniques and fosters the development of advanced methods.
© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  CAMEO; CASP; benchmarking; continuous evaluation; homo-oligomer interface accuracy; ligand binding-site accuracy; model confidence; model quality assessment; oligomeric assessment; protein structure modeling; protein structure prediction

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31571280     DOI: 10.1002/prot.25815

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


  11 in total

1.  The Protein Data Bank Archive.

Authors:  Sameer Velankar; Stephen K Burley; Genji Kurisu; Jeffrey C Hoch; John L Markley
Journal:  Methods Mol Biol       Date:  2021

2.  Building Structural Models of a Whole Mycoplasma Cell.

Authors:  Martina Maritan; Ludovic Autin; Jonathan Karr; Markus W Covert; Arthur J Olson; David S Goodsell
Journal:  J Mol Biol       Date:  2021-11-10       Impact factor: 5.469

3.  DisCovER: distance- and orientation-based covariational threading for weakly homologous proteins.

Authors:  Sutanu Bhattacharya; Rahmatullah Roche; Bernard Moussad; Debswapna Bhattacharya
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2021-10-11

4.  RubyACRs, nonalgal anion channelrhodopsins with highly red-shifted absorption.

Authors:  Elena G Govorunova; Oleg A Sineshchekov; Hai Li; Yumei Wang; Leonid S Brown; John L Spudich
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2020-09-01       Impact factor: 11.205

5.  Sequence Analysis and Structure Prediction of SARS-CoV-2 Accessory Proteins 9b and ORF14: Evolutionary Analysis Indicates Close Relatedness to Bat Coronavirus.

Authors:  Chittaranjan Baruah; Papari Devi; Dhirendra K Sharma
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2020-10-20       Impact factor: 3.411

6.  Accurate prediction of protein structures and interactions using a three-track neural network.

Authors:  Minkyung Baek; Frank DiMaio; Ivan Anishchenko; Justas Dauparas; Sergey Ovchinnikov; Gyu Rie Lee; Jue Wang; Qian Cong; Lisa N Kinch; R Dustin Schaeffer; Claudia Millán; Hahnbeom Park; Carson Adams; Caleb R Glassman; Andy DeGiovanni; Jose H Pereira; Andria V Rodrigues; Alberdina A van Dijk; Ana C Ebrecht; Diederik J Opperman; Theo Sagmeister; Christoph Buhlheller; Tea Pavkov-Keller; Manoj K Rathinaswamy; Udit Dalwadi; Calvin K Yip; John E Burke; K Christopher Garcia; Nick V Grishin; Paul D Adams; Randy J Read; David Baker
Journal:  Science       Date:  2021-07-15       Impact factor: 47.728

7.  ProMod3-A versatile homology modelling toolbox.

Authors:  Gabriel Studer; Gerardo Tauriello; Stefan Bienert; Marco Biasini; Niklaus Johner; Torsten Schwede
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2021-01-28       Impact factor: 4.475

8.  Predicted 3D model of the M protein of Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea Virus and analysis of its immunogenic potential.

Authors:  Alan Rodríguez-Enríquez; Irma Herrera-Camacho; Lourdes Millán-Pérez-Peña; Julio Reyes-Leyva; Gerardo Santos-López; José Francisco Rivera-Benítez; Nora Hilda Rosas-Murrieta
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-02-09       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 9.  Recent Advances in Protein Homology Detection Propelled by Inter-Residue Interaction Map Threading.

Authors:  Sutanu Bhattacharya; Rahmatullah Roche; Md Hossain Shuvo; Debswapna Bhattacharya
Journal:  Front Mol Biosci       Date:  2021-05-11

10.  Highly accurate protein structure prediction for the human proteome.

Authors:  John Jumper; Demis Hassabis; Kathryn Tunyasuvunakool; Jonas Adler; Zachary Wu; Tim Green; Michal Zielinski; Augustin Žídek; Alex Bridgland; Andrew Cowie; Clemens Meyer; Agata Laydon; Sameer Velankar; Gerard J Kleywegt; Alex Bateman; Richard Evans; Alexander Pritzel; Michael Figurnov; Olaf Ronneberger; Russ Bates; Simon A A Kohl; Anna Potapenko; Andrew J Ballard; Bernardino Romera-Paredes; Stanislav Nikolov; Rishub Jain; Ellen Clancy; David Reiman; Stig Petersen; Andrew W Senior; Koray Kavukcuoglu; Ewan Birney; Pushmeet Kohli
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2021-07-22       Impact factor: 69.504

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.