Skip to main content

Advertisement

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 [Å] # < 5Å 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 Å (out of totally 300). For all 20 target proteins, the RMSD difference (in Ångstrom) is given between the selected model and best model in the ensemble.