Bohdan Monastyrskyy

This paper describes outcomes of the 2019 Cryo-EM Model Challenge. The goals were to (1) assess the quality of models that can be produced from cryogenic electron microscopy (cryo-EM) maps using current modeling software, (2) evaluate reproducibility of modeling results from different software developers and users and (3) compare performance of current metrics used for model evaluation, particularly Fit-to-Map metrics, with focus on near-atomic resolution. Our findings demonstrate the relatively high accuracy and reproducibility of cryo-EM models derived by 13 participating teams from four benchmark maps, including three forming a resolution series (1.8 to 3.1 Å). The results permit specific recommendations to be made about validating near-atomic cryo-EM structures both in the context of individual experiments and structure data archives such as the Protein Data Bank. We recommend the adoption of multiple scoring parameters to provide full and objective annotation and assessment of the model, reflective of the observed cryo-EM map density.

This paper describes outcomes of the 2019 Cryo-EM Map-based Model Metrics Challenge sponsored by EMDataResource ( www.emdataresource.org ). The goals of this challenge were (1) to assess the quality of models that can be produced using current modeling software, (2) to check the reproducibility of modeling results from different software developers and users, and (3) compare the performance of current metrics used for evaluation of models. The focus was on near-atomic resolution maps with an innovative twist: three of four target maps formed a resolution series (1.8 to 3.1 Å) from the same specimen and imaging experiment. Tools developed in previous challenges were expanded for managing, visualizing and analyzing the 63 submitted coordinate models, and several novel metrics were introduced. The results permit specific recommendations to be made about validating near-atomic cryo-EM structures both in the context of individual laboratory experiments and holdings of structure data archives such as the Protein Data Bank. Our findings demonstrate the relatively high accuracy and reproducibility of cryo-EM models derived from these benchmark maps by 13 participating teams, representing both widely used and novel modeling approaches. We also evaluate the pros and cons of the commonly used metrics to assess model quality and recommend the adoption of multiple scoring parameters to provide full and objective annotation and assessment of the model, reflective of the observed density in the cryo-EM map.

Structures of seven CASP13 targets were determined using cryo‐electron microscopy (cryo‐EM) technique with resolution between 3.0 and 4.0 å. We provide an overview of the experimentally derived structures and describe results of the numerical evaluation of the submitted models. The evaluation is carried out by comparing coordinates of models to those of reference structures (CASP‐style evaluation), as well as checking goodness‐of‐fit of modeled structures to the cryo‐EM density maps. The performance of contributing research groups in the CASP‐style evaluation is measured in terms of backbone accuracy, all‐atom local geometry and similarity of inter‐subunit interfaces. The results on the cryo‐EM targets are compared with those on the whole set of eighty CASP13 targets. A‐posteriori refinement of the best models in their corresponding cryo‐EM density maps resulted in structures that are very close to the reference structure, including some regions with better fit to the density.

The accuracy of sequence‐based tertiary contact predictions was assessed in a blind prediction experiment at the CASP13 meeting. After 4 years of significant improvements in prediction accuracy, another dramatic advance has taken place since CASP12 was held 2 years ago. The precision of predicting the top L/5 contacts in the free modeling category, where L is the corresponding length of the protein in residues, has exceeded 70%. As a comparison, the best‐performing group at CASP12 with a 47% precision would have finished below the top 1/3 of the CASP13 groups. Extensively trained deep neural network approaches dominate the top performing algorithms, which appear to efficiently integrate information on coevolving residues and interacting fragments or possibly utilize memories of sequence similarities and sometimes can deliver accurate results even in the absence of virtually any target specific evolutionary information. If the current performance is evaluated by F‐score on L contacts, it stands around 24% right now, which, despite the tremendous impact and advance in improving its utility for structure modeling, also suggests that there is much room left for further improvement.

With the advance of experimental procedures obtaining chemical crosslinking information is becoming a fast and routine practice. Information on crosslinks can greatly enhance the accuracy of protein structure modeling. Here, we review the current state of the art in modeling protein structures with the assistance of experimentally determined chemical crosslinks within the framework of the 13^th meeting of Critical Assessment of Structure Prediction approaches. This largest‐to‐date blind assessment reveals benefits of using data assistance in difficult to model protein structure prediction cases. However, in a broader context it also suggests that with the unprecedented advance in accuracy to predict contacts in recent years, experimental crosslinks will be useful only if their specificity and accuracy further improved and they are better integrated into computational workflows.

Scoring model structure is an essential component of protein structure prediction that can affect the prediction accuracy tremendously. Users of protein structure prediction results also need to score models to select the best models for their application studies. In Critical Assessment of techniques for protein Structure Prediction (CASP), model accuracy estimation methods have been tested in a blind fashion by providing models submitted by the tertiary structure prediction servers for scoring. In CASP13, model accuracy estimation results were evaluated in terms of both global and local structure accuracy. Global structure accuracy estimation was evaluated by the quality of the models selected by the global structure scores and by the absolute estimates of the global scores. Residue‐wise, local structure accuracy estimations were evaluated by three different measures. A new measure introduced in CASP13 evaluates the ability to predict inaccurately modeled regions that may be improved by refinement. An intensive comparative analysis on CASP13 and the previous CASPs revealed that the tertiary structure models generated by the CASP13 servers show very distinct features. Higher consensus toward models of higher global accuracy appeared even for free modeling targets, and many models of high global accuracy were not well optimized at the atomic level. This is related to the new technology in CASP13, deep learning for tertiary contact prediction. The tertiary model structures generated by deep learning pose a new challenge for EMA (estimation of model accuracy) method developers. Model accuracy estimation itself is also an area where deep learning can potentially have an impact, although current EMA methods have not fully explored that direction.

We present the assembly category assessment in the 13th edition of the CASP community‐wide experiment. For the second time, protein assemblies constitute an independent assessment category. Compared to the last edition we see a clear uptake in participation, more oligomeric targets released, and consistent, albeit modest, improvement of the predictions quality. Looking at the tertiary structure predictions, we observe that ignoring the oligomeric state of the targets hinders modeling success. We also note that some contact prediction groups successfully predicted homomeric interfacial contacts, though it appears that these predictions were not used for assembly modeling. Homology modeling with sizeable human intervention appears to form the basis of the assembly prediction techniques in this round of CASP. Future developments should see more integrated approaches where subunits are modeled in the context of the assemblies they form.

Protein target structures for the Critical Assessment of Structure Prediction round 13 (CASP13) were split into evaluation units (EUs) based on their structural domains, the domain organization of available templates, and the performance of servers on whole targets compared to split target domains. Eighty targets were split into 112 EUs. The EUs were classified into categories suitable for assessment of high accuracy modeling (or template‐based modeling [TBM]) and topology (or free modeling [FM]) based on target difficulty. Assignment into assessment categories considered the following criteria: (a) the evolutionary relationship of target domains to existing fold space as defined by the Evolutionary Classification of Protein Domains (ECOD) database; (b) the clustering of target domains using eight objective sequence, structure, and performance measures; and (c) the placement of target domains in a scatter plot of target difficulty against server performance used in the previous CASP. Generally, target domains with good server predictions had close template homologs and were classified as TBM. Alternately, targets with poor server predictions represent a mixture of fast evolving homologs, structure analogs, and new folds, and were classified as FM or FM/TBM overlap.

Measuring discrepancies between protein models and native structures is at the heart of development of protein structure prediction methods and comparison of their performance. A number of different evaluation methods have been developed; however, their comprehensive and unbiased comparison has not been performed. We carried out a comparative analysis of several popular model assessment methods (RMSD, TM-score, GDT, QCS, CAD-score, LDDT, SphereGrinder and RPF) to reveal their relative strengths and weaknesses. The analysis, performed on a large and diverse model set derived in the course of three latest community-wide CASP experiments (CASP10–12), had two major directions. First, we looked at general differences between the scores by analyzing distribution, correspondence and correlation of their values as well as differences in selecting best models. Second, we examined the score differences taking into account various structural properties of models (stereochemistry, hydrogen bonds, packing of domains and chain fragments, missing residues, protein length and secondary structure). Our results provide a solid basis for an informed selection of the most appropriate score or combination of scores depending on the task at hand. Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.