http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 저자 : Kryshtafovych, Andriy (검색결과 2 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
Won, Jonghun,Baek, Minkyung,Monastyrskyy, Bohdan,Kryshtafovych, Andriy,Seok, Chaok Alan R.Liss 2019 Proteins Vol.87 No.12
<P><B>Abstract</B></P><P>Scoring model structure is an essential component of protein structure prediction that can affect the prediction accuracy tremendously. Users of protein structure prediction results also need to score models to select the best models for their application studies. In Critical Assessment of techniques for protein Structure Prediction (CASP), model accuracy estimation methods have been tested in a blind fashion by providing models submitted by the tertiary structure prediction servers for scoring. In CASP13, model accuracy estimation results were evaluated in terms of both global and local structure accuracy. Global structure accuracy estimation was evaluated by the quality of the models selected by the global structure scores and by the absolute estimates of the global scores. Residue‐wise, local structure accuracy estimations were evaluated by three different measures. A new measure introduced in CASP13 evaluates the ability to predict inaccurately modeled regions that may be improved by refinement. An intensive comparative analysis on CASP13 and the previous CASPs revealed that the tertiary structure models generated by the CASP13 servers show very distinct features. Higher consensus toward models of higher global accuracy appeared even for free modeling targets, and many models of high global accuracy were not well optimized at the atomic level. This is related to the new technology in CASP13, deep learning for tertiary contact prediction. The tertiary model structures generated by deep learning pose a new challenge for EMA (estimation of model accuracy) method developers. Model accuracy estimation itself is also an area where deep learning can potentially have an impact, although current EMA methods have not fully explored that direction.</P>
-
Lensink, Marc F.,Velankar, Sameer,Kryshtafovych, Andriy,Huang, Shen‐,You,Schneidman‐,Duhovny, Dina,Sali, Andrej,Segura, Joan,Fernandez‐,Fuentes, Narcis,Viswanath, Shruthi,Elber, Ron John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2016 Proteins Vol.84 No.-
<P><B>ABSTRACT</B></P><P>We present the results for CAPRI Round 30, the first joint CASP‐CAPRI experiment, which brought together experts from the protein structure prediction and protein–protein docking communities. The Round comprised 25 targets from amongst those submitted for the CASP11 prediction experiment of 2014. The targets included mostly homodimers, a few homotetramers, and two heterodimers, and comprised protein chains that could readily be modeled using templates from the Protein Data Bank. On average 24 CAPRI groups and 7 CASP groups submitted docking predictions for each target, and 12 CAPRI groups per target participated in the CAPRI scoring experiment. In total more than 9500 models were assessed against the 3D structures of the corresponding target complexes. Results show that the prediction of homodimer assemblies by homology modeling techniques and docking calculations is quite successful for targets featuring large enough subunit interfaces to represent stable associations. Targets with ambiguous or inaccurate oligomeric state assignments, often featuring crystal contact‐sized interfaces, represented a confounding factor. For those, a much poorer prediction performance was achieved, while nonetheless often providing helpful clues on the correct oligomeric state of the protein. The prediction performance was very poor for genuine tetrameric targets, where the inaccuracy of the homology‐built subunit models and the smaller pair‐wise interfaces severely limited the ability to derive the correct assembly mode. Our analysis also shows that docking procedures tend to perform better than standard homology modeling techniques and that highly accurate models of the protein components are not always required to identify their association modes with acceptable accuracy. Proteins 2016; 84(Suppl 1):323–348. © 2016 The Authors Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</P>
연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
