2007
DOI: 10.1002/prot.21669
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Assessment of predictions in the model quality assessment category

Abstract: The article presents our evaluation of the predictions submitted to the model quality assessment (QA) category in CASP7. In this newly introduced category, predictors were asked to provide quality estimates for protein structure models. The QA category uses the automatically produced models that are traditionally distributed to CASP participants as input for predictions. Predictors were asked to provide an index of the quality of these individual models (QM1) as well as an index for the expected correctness of… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
132
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 122 publications
(132 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
0
132
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The equations of motion were integrated with the Shake algorithm with a time step of 1 fs. The modeling quality of 3D models was evaluated by MQAP (Fischer, 2006) and the CASP7 experiment methods of QA (Cozzetto et al, 2007). Figures displaying atomistic pictures of molecules were generated using UCSF Chimera (Pettersen et al, 2004).…”
Section: Prediction Of 3d Protein Structure and Interaction By Molecumentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The equations of motion were integrated with the Shake algorithm with a time step of 1 fs. The modeling quality of 3D models was evaluated by MQAP (Fischer, 2006) and the CASP7 experiment methods of QA (Cozzetto et al, 2007). Figures displaying atomistic pictures of molecules were generated using UCSF Chimera (Pettersen et al, 2004).…”
Section: Prediction Of 3d Protein Structure and Interaction By Molecumentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The SEC Method in the CASP8 Experiment (FAMSD_QA) In the Seventh CASP (CASP7), 12) a new prediction category called Quality Assessment (QA) was implemented. 20) This prediction category was introduced to develop a model quality estimation method without information of the experimental structure of target protein. In this category, predictors estimate the quality of the 3D models which were automatically predicted within 3 d after the receipt of the target sequence by server teams.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…After the prediction period expires, the CASP assessors of the QA category computed the correlation between the observed quality in comparison with the 3D coordinates of the target protein and predicted quality of the models achieved by the participating teams. 20) We participated in the latest CASP experiment (CASP8) 13) in 2008 using the SEC method as a QA predictor called 'FAMSD_QA.' 21) The team name was 'FAMSD'; however, the 'FAMSD' team was also a tertiary structure (TS) predictor, and therefore the inclusion of the '_QA' in the name of FAMSD avoids confusion.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On the other hand, a number of methods for model quality assessment have been based on statistical evaluation of coarse-grained features that allow for discrimination of models that are outside the global energy minimum (i.e., almost all models produced by bioinformatic approaches such as comparative modeling or de novo folding). A number of model quality assessment programs (MQAPs) have been recently developed and rigorously tested (reviews: [26,29]). Here, we used our own "metaserver" MetaMQAP that obtains scores from a number of third-party MQAPs and uses a regression model to calculate a predicted deviation between the position of each residue in the model and its (unknown) position in the real structure [22].…”
Section: Model Quality Assessmentmentioning
confidence: 99%