CASP9

Targets
515 516 517 518
519 520 521 522
523 524 525 526
527 528 529 530
531 532 533 534
535 536 537 538
539 540 541 542
543 544 545 546
547 548 549 550
551 552 553 554
555 556 557 558
559 560 561 562
563 564 565 566
567 568 569 570
571 572 573 574
575 576 577 578
579 580 581 582
583 584 585 586
587 588 589 590
591 592 593 594
595 596 597 598
599 600 601 602
603 604 605 606
607 608 609 610
611 612 613 614
615 616 617 618
619 620 621 622
623 624 625 626
627 628 629 630
631 632 633 634
635 636 637 638
639 640 641 642
643      

Scores we used for evaluation of predictions of FM category

Having a good score to evaluate predictions is crucial for method development. Since many approaches are trained to produce models scoring better according to some evaluation method, flaws in the evaluation method will result in better-scoring models that will not represent real protein structure in any better way. As asessors of CASP9 FM category, We analyzed predictions using four scoring systems: the classic LGA GTD–TS, Contact score (CS), TenS and QCS.

CS: We developed contact score during the CASP8 season, and it was proven to give the best performance according to the study of offical CASP8 assessors. Please go here for the details of algorithm.

TenS: We developed TenS during the CASP5 season when we accessed the FR category (PubMed). Since FR and FM are close to each other, we tried to apply to the assessment of CASP9 FM targets. In general, TenS score is a automatic numerical evaluation scoring system, which contains six different structural measures (GDT, intra-molecular distance, Dali, TM, Mammoth and SOV) and four alignment score (Qlga, QDali, QTM, and Qmammoth). Among these measures, intra-molecular distance, Dali, CE, Mammoth and SOV are sequence independent; GDT, Qlga, QDali, QCE, and Qmammoth are sequence dependent. Thus, the scoring system is balanced. We rescaled the each individual score to Z-score, and combined them toghether with equal weight. The summed score (TenS) was used to compare overall performance of participating groups. Please see TenS slides for details.

QCS: To mimic the manual score, We a new score system QCS to mimic the manual assessment, and it was quite successful according to our critical inspection. Please see QCS slides for details.

Ratio score: Top performing groups use similar strategies that rank server models with various scoring functions and refine top picks. A natural question is: who did better than servers?. To answer this question, we developped a additional score: Ratio of best group model scores to top server model for each of the main scores (GDT, CS, TenS and QCS). The procedure is: ratio scores below 1 are ignored, average Scores(4) for each target, Sum score averages. The Sum of average ratios (which are rarely much larger than 1) indicates the number of times each group outperformed servers. Please see TenS slides for details.