Predictions from Automatic Servers
CAFASP3 in the spotlight of EVA
Article first published online: 15 OCT 2003
DOI: 10.1002/prot.10534
Copyright © 2003 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Issue
1097-0134/asset/cover.gif?v=1&s=d817e79b67ba6cacf8bdcce1a819c04de300a7e3)
Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics
Supplement: Fifth Meeting on the Critical Assessment of Techniques for Protein Structure Prediction
Volume 53, Issue Supplement 6, pages 548–560, 2003
Additional Information
How to Cite
Eyrich, V. A., Przybylski, D., Koh, I. Y.Y., Grana, O., Pazos, F., Valencia, A. and Rost, B. (2003), CAFASP3 in the spotlight of EVA. Proteins, 53: 548–560. doi: 10.1002/prot.10534
Publication History
- Issue published online: 15 OCT 2003
- Article first published online: 15 OCT 2003
- Manuscript Accepted: 19 MAY 2003
- Manuscript Received: 28 FEB 2003
Funded by
- Spanish Ministry of Science and Technology. Grant Number: BIO2000-1358-CO2-01
- TEMBLOR. Grant Number: CSIC:LIFE/001/0957 UE:QLRT-2001-00015
- SANITAS. Grant Number: CSIC:LIFE/992/0553 UE:QLK3-CT-2000-00079
- RAS. Grant Number: CSIC:LIFE/991/0219 UE:QLK3-CT-1999-00875
- National Institutes of Health. Grant Numbers: 5-P20-LM7276, RO1-GM63029-01
- Abstract
- Article
- References
- Cited By
Keywords:
- protein structure prediction;
- evaluation;
- secondary structure;
- inter-residue distances;
- contact maps;
- threading;
- fold recognition;
- automatic servers
Abstract
We have analysed fold recognition, secondary structure and contact prediction servers from CAFASP3. This assessment was carried out in the framework of the fully automated, web-based evaluation server EVA. Detailed results are available at http://cubic.bioc.columbia.edu/eva/cafasp3/. We observed that the sequence-unique targets from CAFASP3/CASP5 were not fully representative for evaluating performance. For all three categories, we showed how careless ranking might be misleading. We compared methods from all categories to experts in secondary structure and contact prediction and homology modellers to fold recognisers. While the secondary structure experts clearly outperformed all others, the contact experts appeared to outperform only novel fold methods. Automatic evaluation servers are good at getting statistics right and at using these to discard misleading ranking schemes. We challenge that to let machines rule where they are best might be the best way for the community to enjoy the tremendous benefit of CASP as a unique opportunity for brainstorming. Proteins 2003;53:548–560. © 2003 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

1097-0134/asset/PROT_centre.gif?v=1&s=77b56b1f2cdaba74cb3bb149bd9b029cd8803cdb)