Protein model quality assessment using 3D oriented convolutional neural networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Protein model quality assessment (QA) is a crucial and yet open problem in structural bioinformatics. The current best methods for single-model QA typically combine results from different approaches, each based on different input features constructed by experts in the field. Then, the prediction model is trained using a machine-learning algorithm. Recently, with the development of convolutional neural networks (CNN), the training paradigm has changed. In computer vision, the expert-developed features have been significantly overpassed by automatically trained convolutional filters. This motivated us to apply a three-dimensional (3D) CNN to the problem of protein model QA. We developed a novel method for single-model QA called Ornate. Ornate (Oriented Routed Neural network with Automatic Typing) is a residue-wise scoring function that takes as input 3D density maps. It predicts the local (residue-wise) and the global model quality through a deep 3D CNN. Specifically, Ornate aligns the input density map, corresponding to each residue and its neighborhood, with the backbone topology of this residue. This circumvents the problem of ambiguous orientations of the initial models. Also, Ornate includes automatic identification of atom types and dynamic routing of the data in the network. Established benchmarks (CASP 11 and CASP 12) demonstrate the state-of-the-art performance of our approach among singlemodel QA methods. The method is available at https://team.inria.fr/nanod/software/Ornate/ . It consists of a C++ executable that transforms molecular structures into volumetric density maps, and a Python code based on the TensorFlow framework for applying the Ornate model to these maps.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".