The challenge of modeling protein assemblies: the CASP12‐CAPRI experiment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present the quality assessment of 5613 models submitted by predictor groups from both CAPRI and CASP for the total of 15 most tractable targets from the second joint CASP-CAPRI protein assembly prediction experiment. These targets comprised 12 homo-oligomers and 3 hetero-complexes. The bulk of the analysis focuses on 10 targets (of CAPRI Round 37), which included all 3 hetero-complexes, and whose protein chains or the full assembly could be readily modeled from structural templates in the PDB. On average, 28 CAPRI groups and 10 CASP groups (including automatic servers), submitted models for each of these 10 targets. Additionally, about 16 groups participated in the CAPRI scoring experiments. A range of acceptable to high quality models were obtained for 6 of the 10 Round 37 targets, for which templates were available for the full assembly. Poorer results were achieved for the remaining targets due to the lower quality of the templates available for the full complex or the individual protein chains, highlighting the unmet challenge of modeling the structural adjustments of the protein components that occur upon binding or which must be accounted for in template-based modeling. On the other hand, our analysis indicated that residues in binding interfaces were correctly predicted in a sizable fraction of otherwise poorly modeled assemblies and this with higher accuracy than published methods that do not use information on the binding partner. Lastly, the strengths and weaknesses of the assessment methods are evaluated and improvements suggested.
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 | 0.027 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".