Skip to main content

Table 2 Decoy recognition based on total structure hydration energy estimates

From: Atomic hydration potentials using a Monte Carlo Reference State (MCRS) for protein solvation modeling

#

Structure ID

Hydration Shell Energy Average, kT

Native to Decoy ΔG, kT\Z-Score

Enrichment, %

  

Native

Decoy

  

1

5RXN

-7.22

-6.13

1.09

100

2

1REI

-15.21

-11.98

3.23

100

3

2CRO

-6.42

-5.57

0.85

100

4

2SSI

-8.77

-7.45

1.32

100

5

2PAZ

-7.34

-5.59

1.75

100

6

1LH1

-13.82

-9.63

4.59

100

7

2ILB

-6.83

-5.92

0.91

100

8

5PAD

-12.95

-11.41

1.54

100

9

1P2P

-13.24

-10.51

2.73

100

10

1RHD

-11.98

-10.62

1.36

100

11

2CI2

-8.65

-7.46

1.19

100

12

2B5C

-7.36

-5.68

1.68

100

13

2TMN

-10.160

-9.10

1.06

100

14

2CYP

-12.208

-9.33

2.88

100

15

2bp2

-9.635

-7.90

1.73

100

16

1cbh

-10.17

-8.65

1.52

100

17

1fdx

-8.12

-7.09

1.03

100

18

1hip

-6.14

-5.40

0.74

100

19

1ppt

-11.01

-6.98

4.03

100

20

1rn3

-12.09

-10.50

1.59

100

21

1sn3

-8.89

-7.38

1.51

100

22

2cdv

-10.27

-8.84

1.43

100

23

2ts1

-11.77

-9.75

2.02

100

24

1res

-11.30

-9.63

5.10

100

25

1ptq

-10.21

-9.70

0.68

74

26

1uxd

-10.04

-8.27

5.08

100

27

2pdd

-8.68

-8.73

0.04

51

28

1uba

-9.01

-8.28

1.24

88

29

1gab

-7.71

-5.98

3.25

100

30

1vif

-10.05

-8.70

2.37

98.5

31

1bq9

-10.22

-8.01

3.55

100

32

5pti

-11.12

-8.31

4.70

100

33

1aa3

-9.94

-7.76

3.78

100

34

1bw6

-7.962

-7.564

0.80

79

35

1orc

-8.944

-9.693

-1.04

15

36

1am3

-10.857

-9.126

3.67

100

37

1pgx

-10.211

-8.262

3.40

100

38

1tif

-10.283

-8.416

3.33

100

39

1msi

-12.712

-10.401

3.69

100

40

2ptl

-10.982

-7.708

6.89

100

41

1r69

-10.316

-7.670

4.69

100

42

1tuc

-10.564

-8.614

2.28

100

43

1dol

-10.890

-8.611

3.68

100

44

1utg

-7.998

-7.792

0.42

67

45

1csp

-11.524

-8.227

4.30

100

46

1a32

-9.844

-10.077

-0.50

28

47

2ezh

-11.496

-9.431

3.74

100

48

1nre

-8.198

-7.288

1.92

97

49

1sro

-11.319

-9.443

2.85

99.5

50

2fow

-9.442

-7.466

5.24

100

51

1ail

-10.957

-10.734

0.38

63

52

1ctf

-8.758

-7.123

3.30

100

53

1lfb

-9.387

-7.908

3.18

100

54

1nkl

-11.289

-10.048

2.21

99

55

1pou

-11.890

-9.495

4.40

100

56

1mzm

-12.126

-9.837

4.93

100

57

1afi

-10.691

-9.655

2.28

99.5

58

5icb

-9.006

-6.895

5.80

100

59

1kjs

-10.521

-9.063

2.90

100

60

1hyp

-14.662

-12.513

2.63

98.5

61

1cc5

-10.227

-9.895

0.64

77

62

1vcc

-13.279

-11.533

2.71

100

63

2fxb

-11.126

-8.699

4.37

100

64

1cei

-9.810

-9.589

0.43

65

  1. The average hydration energy of the structure hydration shell, calculated with AHP, was used as a discriminating criterion for the fold recognition test. Column five gives the estimated free energy difference between the native and the decoy structures (lines 1–23), or a Z-score in case of the multiple decoys (lines 24–64). The last column, 'Enrichment', gives the percentage of the decoys with the estimated free energy higher (not as good) than the native structure. Decoys'R'Us database hg_structal misfold decoy set [36] was used for this test, lines 1 to 23, and the improved Rosetta set (lines 24 to 64), made by Tsai et al. [39].