4.8 Article

Improved fragment sampling for ab initio protein structure prediction using deep neural networks

期刊

NATURE MACHINE INTELLIGENCE
卷 1, 期 8, 页码 347-355

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s42256-019-0075-7

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31670723, 81861138009, 91746119, 31621092]
  2. Beijing Advanced Innovation Center for Structural Biology
  3. Australian Research Council [DP180102060]
  4. National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia [1121629]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A typical approach to predicting unknown native structures of proteins is to assemble the amino acid residues (fragments) extracted from known structures. The quality of these extracted fragments, which are used to build protein-specific fragment libraries, can determine the success or failure of sampling near-native conformations. Here we show how a high-quality fragment library can be built using deep contextual learning techniques. Our algorithm, called DeepFragLib, employs bidirectional long short-term-memory recurrent neural networks with knowledge distillation for initial fragment classification, followed by an aggregated residual transformation network with cyclically dilated convolution for detecting near-native fragments. DeepFragLib improves the position-averaged proportion of near-native fragments by 12.2% over existing methods and, consequently, produces better near-native structures for 72.0% of the free-modelling domain targets tested when integrated with Rosetta. DeepFragLib is fully parallelized and available for use in conjunction with structure prediction programs. An approach to protein structure prediction is to assemble candidate structures from template fragments, which are extracted from known protein structures. Wang et al. demonstrate that combining deep neural network architectures with a relatively small but high-resolution fragment dataset can improve the quality of the sample fragment libraries used for protein structure prediction.

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

4.8
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