PREDICTING LOCAL QUALITY OF A SEQUENCE–STRUCTURE ALIGNMENT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although protein structure prediction has made great progress in recent years, a protein model derived from automated prediction methods is subject to various errors. As methods for structure prediction develop, a continuing problem is how to evaluate the quality of a protein model, especially to identify some well-predicted regions of the model, so that the structural biology community can benefit from the automated structure prediction. It is also important to identify badly-predicted regions in a model so that some refinement measurements can be applied to it. We present two complementary techniques, FragQA and PosQA, to accurately predict local quality of a sequence-structure (i.e. sequence-template) alignment generated by comparative modeling (i.e. homology modeling and threading). FragQA and PosQA predict local quality from two different perspectives. Different from existing methods, FragQA directly predicts cRMSD between a continuously aligned fragment determined by an alignment and the corresponding fragment in the native structure, while PosQA predicts the quality of an individual aligned position. Both FragQA and PosQA use an SVM (Support Vector Machine) regression method to perform prediction using similar information extracted from a single given alignment. Experimental results demonstrate that FragQA performs well on predicting local fragment quality, and PosQA outperforms two top-notch methods, ProQres and ProQprof. Our results indicate that (1) local quality can be predicted well; (2) local sequence evolutionary information (i.e. sequence similarity) is the major factor in predicting local quality; and (3) structural information such as solvent accessibility and secondary structure helps to improve the prediction performance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".