Comparing Protein Scoring Methods
Author Information
Author(s): Dan M Bolser, Ioannis Filippis, Henning Stehr, Jose Duarte, Michael Lappe
Primary Institution: The Max Planck Institute for Molecular Genetics
Hypothesis
How do single-body residue contact-count potentials compare to two-body residue contact-type potentials in scoring protein structures?
Conclusion
Both contact-count and contact-type scoring methods perform similarly in ranking protein decoys, but contact-count methods may provide more information.
Supporting Evidence
- The study used a dataset of nearly three thousand monomers for comparison.
- Contact-count scores were found to carry more information than contact-type scores.
- Both scoring methods performed equally well in discriminating between near-native protein decoys.
Takeaway
This study looked at two ways to score proteins to see which one works better. They found that both ways are pretty good, but one might be a little better.
Methodology
The study compared two types of scoring matrices derived from a dataset of protein structures to evaluate their effectiveness in discriminating between native and near-native protein decoys.
Limitations
The study did not address combinations of the two scores or compare them to other scoring methods in the literature.
Statistical Information
Statistical Significance
p<0.05
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website