Table 5

Comparison of PC2CA and DFMAC functions on the test set.


PC2CA
 DFMAC


decoy set
 total
 correct
 Cα RMSD
 Z-score
 C.C.
 F.E.(%)
 correct
 Cα RMSD
 Z-score
 C.C.
 F.E.(%)
4state_reduced
 3
 2
 0.7
 1.4
 0.59
 53.4
 3
 0.0
 3.5
 0.77
 62.6
fisa
 1
 1
 0.0
 7.3
 0.17
 22.0
 1
 0.0
 4.2
 0.28
 24.0
fisa_casp3
 2
 2
 0.0
 4.4
 -0.02
 10.4
 1
 3.7
 3.0
 0.22
 19.6
hg_structal
 10
 5
 0.8
 1.3
 0.70
 53.3
 9
 0.2
 1.8
 0.82
 50.0
ig_structal
 20
 0
 2.2
 -0.8
 0.31
 18.3
 15
 0.4
 1.9
 0.51
 25.8
ig_structual_hires
 7
 0
 2.6
 -0.2
 0.32
 0.0
 6
 0.2
 2.0
 0.54
 42.9
lattice_ssfit
 2
 2
 0.0
 3.9
 0.02
 11.1
 2
 0.0
 10.5
 0.04
 12.8
lmds
 4
 3
 1.6
 3.7
 0.10
 19.5
 2
 4.2
 2.5
 0.07
 15.1
semfold
 2
 1
 0.2
 2.7
 0.05
 13.0
 1
 6.1
 5.1
 0.08
 16.4
Summary
 51
 16
 1.5
 0.9
 0.35
 24.1
 40
 0.9
 2.6
 0.50
 33.1

Only the results for targets listed in our test set are compiled and shown. The number of correctly identified native structures (correct) out of the total targets (total) is shown by individual generation methods. The averages of Cα RMSD, Z-score, C.C., and F.E. for the respective decoy sets are also shown. In the "Summary" column, the sum of total and correct counts, and the averages of Cα RMSD, Z-score, C.C., and F.E. over the respective protein targets, are shown. The results of PC2CA [16] were used and the respective score averages were calculated.

Makino and Itoh BMC Structural Biology 2008 8:46   doi:10.1186/1472-6807-8-46