4.3 Article

MUFOLD-WQA: A new selective consensus method for quality assessment in protein structure prediction

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/prot.23185

关键词

protein tertiary structure prediction; protein model quality assessment; protein model selection; consensus method; critical assessment of techniques for protein structure prediction

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R21/R33-GMO78601]
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDICAL SCIENCES [R33GM078601, R21GM078601] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Assessing the quality of predicted models is essential in protein tertiary structure prediction. In the past critical assessment of techniques for protein structure prediction (CASP) experiments, consensus quality assessment (QA) methods have shown to be very effective, outperforming single-model methods and other competing approaches by a large margin. In the consensus QA approach, the quality score of a model is typically estimated based on pair-wise structure similarity of it to a set of reference models. In CASP8, the differences among the top QA servers were mostly in the selection of the reference models. In this article, we present a new consensus method SelCon based on two key ideas: (1) to adaptively select appropriate reference models based on the attributes of the whole set of predicted models and (2) to weigh different reference models differently, and in particular not to use models that are too similar or too different from the candidate model as its references. We have developed several reference selection functions in SelCon and obtained improved QA results over existing QA methods in experiments using CASP7 and CASP8 data. In the recently completed CASP9 in 2010, the new method was implemented in our MUFOLD-WQA server. Both the official CASP9 assessment and our in-house evaluation showed that MUFOLD-WQA performed very well and achieved top performances in both the global structure QA and top-model selection category in CASP9. Proteins 2011; 79(Suppl 10): 185-195. (C) 2011 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据