Cited by 9Protein Structure and DynamicsEnzyme Structure and FunctionMachine Learning in Bioinformatics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

High-accuracy protein model quality assessment using attention graph neural networks

Open access
Zhang, Peidong, Xia, Chunqiu, Shen, Hong-Bin·2023·Briefings in Bioinformatics

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Great improvement has been brought to protein tertiary structure prediction through deep learning. It is important but very challenging to accurately rank and score decoy structures predicted by different models. CASP14 results show that existing quality assessment (QA) approaches lag behind the development of protein structure prediction methods, where almost all existing QA models degrade in accuracy when the target is a decoy of high quality. How to give an accurate assessment to high-accuracy decoys is particularly useful with the available of accurate structure prediction methods. Here we propose a fast and effective single-model QA method, QATEN, which can evaluate decoys only by their topological characteristics and atomic types. Our model uses graph neural networks and attention mechanisms to evaluate global and amino acid level scores, and uses specific loss functions to constrain the network to focus more on high-precision decoys and protein domains. On the CASP14 evaluation decoys, QATEN performs better than other QA models under all correlation coefficients when targeting average LDDT. QATEN shows promising performance when considering only high-accuracy decoys. Compared to the embedded evaluation modules of predicted ${C}_{\alpha^{-}} RMSD$ (pRMSD) in RosettaFold and predicted LDDT (pLDDT) in AlphaFold2, QATEN is complementary and capable of achieving better evaluation on some decoy structures generated by AlphaFold2 and RosettaFold. These results suggest that the new QATEN approach can be used as a reliable independent assessment algorithm for high-accuracy protein structure decoys.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/bib/bbac614

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 40

  1. Gawehn, 2016, Deep learning in drug discovery, Mol Inform, 35, 3, 10.1002/minf.201501008 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Jacobson, 2004, Comparative protein structure modeling and its applications to drug discovery, Annu Rep Med Chem, 39, 259
  3. Zhang, 2017, Enhancing protein conformational space sampling using distance profile-guided differential evolution, IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinform, 14, 1288, 10.1109/TCBB.2016.2566617 · DOI
  4. Ma, 2013, Protein threading using context-specific alignment potential, Bioinformatics, 29, i257, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btt210 · DOI
  5. Yang, 2020, Improved protein structure prediction using predicted interresidue orientations, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 117, 1496, 10.1073/pnas.1914677117 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Rohl, 2004, Protein structure prediction using Rosetta, Methods Enzymol, 83, 66, 10.1016/S0076-6879(04)83004-0 · DOI
  7. Zhang, 2008, I-TASSER server for protein 3D structure prediction, BMC Bioinform, 9, 40, 10.1186/1471-2105-9-40 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Wei, 2019, Protein structure prediction beyond AlphaFold, Nat Mach Intell, 1, 336, 10.1038/s42256-019-0086-4 · DOI
  9. Yang, 2018, MemBrain-contact 2.0: a new two-stage machine learning model for the prediction enhancement of transmembrane protein residue contacts in the full chain, Bioinformatics, 34, 230, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btx593 · DOI
  10. Hu, 2017, Predicting protein-DNA binding residues by weightedly combining sequence-based features and boosting multiple SVMs, IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinform, 14, 1389, 10.1109/TCBB.2016.2616469 · DOI
  11. Kallberg, 2012, Template-based protein structure modeling using the RaptorX web server, Nat Protoc, 7, 1511, 10.1038/nprot.2012.085 · DOI
  12. Zhang, 2022, Accurate flexible refinement for atomic-level protein structure using cryo-EM density maps and deep learning, Brief Bioinform, 23, 10.1093/bib/bbac026 · DOI
  13. Cozzetto, 2007, Assessment of predictions in the model quality assessment category, Proteins, 69, 175, 10.1002/prot.21669 · DOI
  14. Cheng, 2019, Estimation of model accuracy in CASP13, Proteins, 87, 1361, 10.1002/prot.25767 · DOI
  15. Zemla, 2003, LGA: a method for finding 3D similarities in protein structures, Nucleic Acids Res, 31, 3370, 10.1093/nar/gkg571 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Won, 2019, Assessment of protein model structure accuracy estimation in CASP13: challenges in the era of deep learning, Proteins, 87, 1351, 10.1002/prot.25804 · DOI
  17. Chen, 2020, Machine learning approaches for quality assessment of protein structures, Biomolecules, 10, 10.3390/biom10040626 · DOI
  18. Cao, 2015, Large-scale model quality assessment for improving protein tertiary structure prediction, Bioinformatics, 31, i116, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btv235 · DOI
  19. Uziela, 2016, ProQ3: improved model quality assessments using Rosetta energy terms, Sci Rep, 6, 33509, 10.1038/srep33509 · DOI
  20. Ray, 2012, Improved model quality assessment using ProQ2, BMC Bioinform, 13, 224, 10.1186/1471-2105-13-224 · DOI
  21. Uziela, 2017, ProQ3D: improved model quality assessments using deep learning, Bioinformatics, 33, 1578, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btw819 · DOI
  22. Cao, 2016, DeepQA: improving the estimation of single protein model quality with deep belief networks, BMC Bioinformatics, 17, 495, 10.1186/s12859-016-1405-y · DOI
  23. Sato, 2019, Protein model accuracy estimation based on local structure quality assessment using 3D convolutional neural network, PLoS One, 14, e0221347, 10.1371/journal.pone.0221347 · DOI
  24. Pages, 2019, Protein model quality assessment using 3D oriented convolutional neural networks, Bioinformatics, 35, 3313, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btz122 · DOI
  25. Sanyal, 2020, ProteinGCN: protein model quality assessment using graph convolutional networks, 2020.04.06.028266
  26. Baldassarre, 2021, GraphQA: protein model quality assessment using graph convolutional networks, Bioinformatics, 37, 360, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btaa714 · DOI
  27. Maghrabi, 2020, Estimating the quality of 3D protein models using the ModFOLD7 server, Methods Mol Biol, 2165, 69, 10.1007/978-1-0716-0708-4_4 · DOI
  28. McGuffin, 2021, ModFOLD8: accurate global and local quality estimates for 3D protein models, Nucleic Acids Res, 49, W425, 10.1093/nar/gkab321 · DOI
  29. Yang, 2016, ResQ: an approach to unified estimation of B-factor and residue-specific error in protein structure prediction, J Mol Biol, 428, 693, 10.1016/j.jmb.2015.09.024 · DOI
  30. Kwon, 2021, Assessment of protein model structure accuracy estimation in CASP14: old and new challenges, Proteins, 89, 1940, 10.1002/prot.26192 · DOI
  31. Liu, 2020, DeepCDR: a hybrid graph convolutional network for predicting cancer drug response, Bioinformatics, 36, i911, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btaa822 · DOI
  32. Yin, 2022, scGraph: a graph neural network-based approach to automatically identify cell types, Bioinformatics, 38, 2996, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btac199 · DOI
  33. Gligorijevic, 2021, Structure-based protein function prediction using graph convolutional networks, Nat Commun, 12, 3168, 10.1038/s41467-021-23303-9 · DOI
  34. Ma, 2022, DualGCN: a dual graph convolutional network model to predict cancer drug response, BMC Bioinform, 23, 129, 10.1186/s12859-022-04664-4 · DOI
  35. Fout, 2017, Protein Interface Prediction using Graph Convolutional Networks
  36. Jing, 2021, Fast and effective protein model refinement using deep graph neural networks, Nat Comput Sci, 1, 462, 10.1038/s43588-021-00098-9 · DOI
  37. Hiranuma, 2021, Improved protein structure refinement guided by deep learning based accuracy estimation, Nat Commun, 12, 1340, 10.1038/s41467-021-21511-x · DOI · Paper page
  38. Hippe, 2022, ZoomQA: residue-level protein model accuracy estimation with machine learning on sequential and 3D structural features, Brief Bioinform, 23, 10.1093/bib/bbab384 · DOI
  39. Jones, 2022, The impact of AlphaFold2 one year on, Nat Methods, 19, 15, 10.1038/s41592-021-01365-3 · DOI
  40. Kabsch, 1983, Dictionary of protein secondary structure: pattern recognition of hydrogen-bonded and geometrical features, Biopolymers, 22, 2577, 10.1002/bip.360221211 · DOI · Paper page

Metadata

Authors
Zhang, P., Xia, C., & Shen, H.-B.
Affiliations
Shanghai Jiao Tong University (CN)
Corresponding author
Shen, Hong-Bin
Venue
Briefings in Bioinformatics
Published
2023-02-03
Volume
24
Issue
2
ISSN
  • 1467-5463 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-4054
OpenAlex
W4319216324
Cited by
9
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3
FWCI
0.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Briefings in Bioinformatics (publishedVersion)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality (22511104100)
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (62073219, 61725302)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Structure and Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Structural Biology › Enzyme Structure and Function
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Machine Learning in Bioinformatics
Keywords
protein structure quality assessment, decoy ranking, protein tertiary structure prediction, protein domains, AlphaFold2, RoseTTAFold, CASP14
MeSH terms
Protein Domains, Algorithms, Amino Acids, Protein Conformation, Proteins, Neural Networks, Computer, Computational Biology

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review