Deep convolutional networks for quality assessment of protein folds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Motivation: The computational prediction of a protein structure from its sequence generally relies on a method to assess the quality of protein models. Most assessment methods rank candidate models using heavily engineered structural features, defined as complex functions of the atomic coordinates. However, very few methods have attempted to learn these features directly from the data. Results: We show that deep convolutional networks can be used to predict the ranking of model structures solely on the basis of their raw three-dimensional atomic densities, without any feature tuning. We develop a deep neural network that performs on par with state-of-the-art algorithms from the literature. The network is trained on decoys from the CASP7 to CASP10 datasets and its performance is tested on the CASP11 dataset. Additional testing on decoys from the CASP12, CAMEO and 3DRobot datasets confirms that the network performs consistently well across a variety of protein structures. While the network learns to assess structural decoys globally and does not rely on any predefined features, it can be analyzed to show that it implicitly identifies regions that deviate from the native structure. Availability and implementation: The code and the datasets are available at https://github.com/lamoureux-lab/3DCNN_MQA. Supplementary information: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".