The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
High-accuracy protein model quality assessment using attention graph neural networks
Open accessPreprint — published as 10.1093/bib/bbac614 · Paper page
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 high-precision 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 α - 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 themselves. 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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold
Jumper, J., Evans, R., Pritzel, A., Green, T., Figurnov, M., Ronneberger, O., Tunyasuvunakool, K., Bates, R., Žídek, A., Potapenko, A., et al. (2021) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03819-2 · Cited by 43,764
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 37
- 2016, Deep Learning in Drug Discovery, Mol Inform, 35, 3, 10.1002/minf.201501008 · DOI · Paper page
- 2004, Comparative Protein Structure Modeling and its Applications to Drug Discovery, 39, 259
- 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
- 10.1093/bioinformatics/btt210 · DOI
- 10.1073/pnas.1914677117 · DOI · Paper page
- Rohl, C.A. , et al., Protein structure prediction using Rosetta, in Methods in enzymology. 2004, Elsevier. p. 66–93. · DOI
- 10.1186/1471-2105-9-40 · DOI · Paper page
- 2019, Protein structure prediction beyond AlphaFold, Nature Machine Intelligence, 1, 336, 10.1038/s42256-019-0086-4 · DOI
- 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
- 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
- 10.1038/nprot.2012.085 · DOI
- Zhang, B. , et al., Accurate flexible refinement for atomic-level protein structure using cryo-EM density maps and deep learning. Brief Bioinform, 2022. 23(2). · DOI
- 10.1126/science.abj8754 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1002/prot.21669 · DOI
- 10.1093/nar/gkg571 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1093/bioinformatics/btt473 · DOI · Paper page
- 2019, Estimation of model accuracy in CASP13, Proteins, 87, 1361, 10.1002/prot.25767 · DOI
- 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
- Chen, J. and S.W.I. Siu , Machine Learning Approaches for Quality Assessment of Protein Structures. Biomolecules, 2020. 10(4). · DOI
- 10.1093/bioinformatics/btv235 · DOI
- 10.1038/srep33509 · DOI
- 10.1186/1471-2105-13-224 · DOI
- 2017, ProQ3D: improved model quality assessments using deep learning, Bioinformatics, 33, 1578, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btw819 · DOI
- 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
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0221347 · DOI
- 2019, Protein model quality assessment using 3D oriented convolutional neural networks, Bioinformatics, 35, 3313, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btz122 · DOI
- Sanyal, S. , et al., ProteinGCN: Protein model quality assessment using Graph Convolutional Networks. 2020: p. 2020.04.06.028266. · DOI
- 2021, GraphQA: protein model quality assessment using graph convolutional networks, Bioinformatics, 37, 360, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btaa714 · DOI
- 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
- 10.1093/nar/gkab321 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jmb.2015.09.024 · DOI
- 2021, Assessment of protein model structure accuracy estimation in CASP14: Old and new challenges, Proteins, 89, 1940, 10.1002/prot.26192 · DOI
- 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
- 2021, Fast and effective protein model refinement using deep graph neural networks, Nat Comput Sci, 1, 462, 10.1038/s43588-021-00098-9 · DOI
- Hippe, K. , et al., ZoomQA: residue-level protein model accuracy estimation with machine learning on sequential and 3D structural features. Brief Bioinform, 2022. 23(1). · DOI
- 10.1002/bip.360221211 · DOI · Paper page
- Vaswani, A. , et al. Attention Is All You Need. in arXiv. 2017.
Metadata
- Authors
- Zhang, P., Xia, C., & Shen, H.-B.
- Affiliations
- Shanghai Jiao Tong University (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Shen, Hong-Bin
- Venue
- Briefings in Bioinformatics
- Publisher
- openRxiv
- Published
- 2022-09-26
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 2
- ISSN
- 1467-5463 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4319216324
- Cited by
- 9
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3
- FWCI
- 0.65
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by-nc
- Locations
- Briefings in Bioinformatics (publishedVersion)
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (61725302, 62073219)
- Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality (22511104100)
- 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