Structure similarity measure with penalty for close non-equivalent residues

Comparative analysis of methods for evaluation of protein models against native structures

MOTIVATION

Measuring discrepancies between protein models and native structures is at the heart of development of protein structure prediction methods and comparison of their performance. A number of different evaluation methods have been developed; however, their comprehensive and unbiased comparison has not been performed.

RESULTS

We carried out a comparative analysis of several popular model assessment methods (RMSD, TM-score, GDT, QCS, CAD-score, LDDT, SphereGrinder and RPF) to reveal their relative strengths and weaknesses. The analysis, performed on a large and diverse model set derived in the course of three latest community-wide CASP experiments (CASP10-12), had two major directions. First, we looked at general differences between the scores by analyzing distribution, correspondence and correlation of their values as well as differences in selecting best models. Second, we examined the score differences taking into account various structural properties of models (stereochemistry, hydrogen bonds, packing of domains and chain fragments, missing residues, protein length and secondary structure). Our results provide a solid basis for an informed selection of the most appropriate score or combination of scores depending on the task at hand.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

CAD-score: a new contact area difference-based function for evaluation of protein structural models

Evaluation of protein models against the native structure is essential for the development and benchmarking of protein structure prediction methods. Although a number of evaluation scores have been proposed to date, many aspects of model assessment still lack desired robustness. In this study we present CAD-score, a new evaluation function quantifying differences between physical contacts in a model and the reference structure. The new score uses the concept of residue-residue contact area difference (CAD) introduced by Abagyan and Totrov (J Mol Biol 1997; 268:678-685). Contact areas, the underlying basis of the score, are derived using the Voronoi tessellation of protein structure. The newly introduced CAD-score is a continuous function, confined within fixed limits, free of any arbitrary thresholds or parameters. The built-in logic for treatment of missing residues allows consistent ranking of models of any degree of completeness. We tested CAD-score on a large set of diverse models and compared it to GDT-TS, a widely accepted measure of model accuracy. Similarly to GDT-TS, CAD-score showed a robust performance on single-domain proteins, but displayed a stronger preference for physically more realistic models. Unlike GDT-TS, the new score revealed a balanced assessment of domain rearrangement, removing the necessity for different treatment of single-domain, multi-domain, and multi-subunit structures. Moreover, CAD-score makes it possible to assess the accuracy of inter-domain or inter-subunit interfaces directly. In addition, the approach offers an alternative to the superposition-based model clustering. The CAD-score implementation is available both as a web server and a standalone software package at http://www.ibt.lt/bioinformatics/cad-score/.

Biological network analysis and comparison: mining new biological knowledge

The mechanisms underlying life machinery are still not completely understood. Something is known, something is “probably” known, other things are still unknown. Scientists all over the world are working very hard to clarify the processes regulating the cell life cycle and bioinformaticians try to support them by developing specialized automated tools. Within the plethora of applications devoted to the study of life mechanisms, tools for the analysis and comparison of biological networks are catching the attention of many researchers. It is interesting to investigate why.