2022
DOI: 10.1101/2022.01.11.475831
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

De novo protein structure prediction by incremental inter-residue geometries prediction and model quality assessment using deep learning

Abstract: Motivation: The successful application of deep learning has promoted progress in protein model quality assessment. How to use model quality assessment to further improve the accuracy of protein structure prediction, especially not reliant on the existing templates, is helpful for unraveling the folding mechanism. Here, we investigate whether model quality assessment can be introduced into structure prediction to form a closed-loop feedback, and iteratively improve the accuracy of de novo protein structure pred… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
11
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

3
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 78 publications
(79 reference statements)
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In this study, we used GeomNet, a geometric constraints prediction network in our recently developed structure prediction server RocketX (Liu et al ., 2022), to predict the inter-residue distance of full-chain. For the query sequence, MSA was generated by iterative search against UniRef30 (Mirdita et al ., 2017) and BFD (Steinegger et al ., 2019) databases by using HHblits (Steinegger et al ., 2019) with gradually relaxed e-values of 1e -30 , 1e -10 , 1e -6 , and 1e -3 .…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this study, we used GeomNet, a geometric constraints prediction network in our recently developed structure prediction server RocketX (Liu et al ., 2022), to predict the inter-residue distance of full-chain. For the query sequence, MSA was generated by iterative search against UniRef30 (Mirdita et al ., 2017) and BFD (Steinegger et al ., 2019) databases by using HHblits (Steinegger et al ., 2019) with gradually relaxed e-values of 1e -30 , 1e -10 , 1e -6 , and 1e -3 .…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this study, we used GeomNet, a geometric constraints prediction network in our recently developed structure prediction server RocketX (Liu et al, 2022), to predict the inter-residue distance of full-chain. For the query sequence, MSA was generated by iterative search against UniRef30 (Mirdita et al, 2017) and BFD databases by using HHblits with gradually relaxed e-values of 1e -30 , 1e -10 , 1e -6 , and 1e -3 .…”
Section: Force Field For Domain Assemblymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…With the development of deep learning, protein structure prediction methods have been developed successively, such as trRosetta (Yang et al, 2020;Su et al, 2021;Du et al, 2021), RaptorX (Xu, 2019;Xu and Wang, 2019), RocketX (Liu et al, 2022), and D-I-TASSER (Zheng et al, 2021). Recently, end-to-end methods, such as AlphaFold2 (Jumper et al, 2021) and RoseTTAFold (Baek et al, 2021), have been proposed to accurately predict more complex proteins including some multi-domain proteins.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In our previously proposed SADA approach, a multi-domain protein structure database (MPDB) was constructed for the full-chain analogue detection using individual domain models. Based on the detected analogue, an energy function assisted by deep learning network GeomNet is designed to guide domain assembly [25]. The results show that SADA can be an effective complement to AlphaFold2 in multi-domain protein modelling [21].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Obviously, for 3dom and m4dom, SADA has lower accuracy, because it is difficult to detect effective structural analogues when the number of structural domains increases. However, the DeepIDDP can provide more inter-domain information than distance prediction methods (such as GeomNet) to capture the orientation between domains, and further improve the accuracy of the final model [25]. ≥ 0.5), representing 95.2% of the total and 3.39% higher than SADA.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%