Skip to main content

Table 5 Comparison between QMEAN and QMEANclust in the task of selecting near native models on the MOULDER test set.

From: QMEANclust: estimation of protein model quality by combining a composite scoring function with structural density information

   

ΔRMSD [Å]

targets

median RMSD [Ã…]

# < 5Ã…

QMEAN

QMEANclust

2cmd

5.76

100

2.75

0.67

1bbh

6.49

86

0.00

0.17

2mta

6.66

119

0.29

0.31

1dxt

7.19

79

1.11

0.72

2pna

7.29

57

0.14

0.14

1lga

8.17

106

0.82

1.10

1mup

8.18

65

0.40

0.36

8i1b

8.34

115

0.62

0.47

2afn

8.54

42

0.12

0.58

2fbj

8.84

59

0.29

0.26

1mdc

9.27

105

0.07

0.18

1onc

10.46

106

0.47

0.15

1c2r

10.46

7

0.00

1.95

2sim

10.98

55

0.00

0.96

1cid

11.16

0

0.11

0.63

1gky

11.56

15

0.66

1.16

1cau

11.92

11

0.42

3.54

1eaf

12.64

1

0.34

1.72

1cew

14.74

21

2.77

2.24

4sbv

17.40

1

0.00

5.74

average

9.80

57.5

0.57

1.15

  1. The first two data columns contain the median RMSD of the models in the decoy set and the number of models with RMSD < 5 Ã… (out of totally 300). For all 20 target proteins, the RMSD difference (in Ã…ngstrom) is given between the selected model and best model in the ensemble.
Back to article page

BMC Structural Biology

ISSN: 1472-6807

Contact us