HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Wallner, B. Articles by Elofsson, A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Wallner, B. Articles by Elofsson, A. Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

All are not equal: A benchmark of different homology modeling programs

Stockholm Bioinformatics Center, Albanova University Center, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

(RECEIVED November 22, 2004; FINAL REVISION February 18, 2005; ACCEPTED February 18, 2005)

Modeling a protein structure based on a homologous structure is a standard method in structural biology today. In this process an alignment of a target protein sequence onto the structure of a template(s) is used as input to a program that constructs a 3D model. It has been shown that the most important factor in this process is the correctness of the alignment and the choice of the best template structure(s), while it is generally believed that there are no major differences between the best modeling programs. Therefore, a large number of studies to benchmark the alignment qualities and the selection process have been performed. However, to our knowledge no large-scale benchmark has been performed to evaluate the programs used to transform the alignment to a 3D model. In this study, a benchmark of six different homology modeling programs— Modeller, SegMod/ENCAD, SWISS-MODEL, 3D-JIGSAW, nest, and Builder—is presented. The performance of these programs is evaluated using physiochemical correctness and structural similarity to the correct structure. From our analysis it can be concluded that no single modeling program outperform the others in all tests. However, it is quite clear that three modeling programs, Modeller, nest, and SegMod/ ENCAD, perform better than the others. Interestingly, the fastest and oldest modeling program, SegMod/ ENCAD, performs very well, although it was written more than 10 years ago and has not undergone any development since. It can also be observed that none of the homology modeling programs builds side chains as well as a specialized program (SCWRL), and therefore there should be room for improvement.

Keywords: homology modeling; structure quality; alignment quality

Article and publication are at http://www.proteinscience.org/cgi/doi/10.1110/ps.041253405.

Reprint requests to: Björn Wallner, Stockholm Bioinformatics Center, Albanova University Center, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden; e-mail: bjorn{at}sbc.su.se; fax: +46-8-5557-8214.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. Lu, A. D. Dousis, and J. Ma OPUS-Rota: A fast and accurate method for side-chain modeling Protein Sci., September 1, 2008; 17(9): 1576 - 1585. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Montgomerie, J. A. Cruz, S. Shrivastava, D. Arndt, M. Berjanskii, and D. S. Wishart PROTEUS2: a web server for comprehensive protein structure prediction and structure-based annotation Nucleic Acids Res., July 1, 2008; 36(suppl_2): W202 - W209. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. Knapp, U. Omasits, and W. Schreiner Side chain substitution benchmark for peptide/MHC interaction Protein Sci., June 1, 2008; 17(6): 977 - 982. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. Larsson, B. Wallner, E. Lindahl, and A. Elofsson Using multiple templates to improve quality of homology models in automated homology modeling Protein Sci., June 1, 2008; 17(6): 990 - 1002. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. A. Rossi, C. A. Weigelt, A. Nayeem, and S. R. Krystek Jr Loopholes and missing links in protein modeling Protein Sci., September 1, 2007; 16(9): 1999 - 2012. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. F. Lue and Z. Li Modeling and structure function analysis of the putative anchor site of yeast telomerase Nucleic Acids Res., August 1, 2007; (2007) gkm531v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. A. R. Dalton and R. M. Jackson An evaluation of automated homology modelling methods at low target template sequence similarity Bioinformatics, August 1, 2007; 23(15): 1901 - 1908. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. Wallner, P. Larsson, and A. Elofsson Pcons.net: protein structure prediction meta server Nucleic Acids Res., July 13, 2007; 35(suppl_2): W369 - W374. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. M. S. Misura, D. Chivian, C. A. Rohl, D. E. Kim, and D. Baker Physically realistic homology models built with ROSETTA can be more accurate than their templates PNAS, April 4, 2006; 103(14): 5361 - 5366. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Nayeem, D. Sitkoff, and S. Krystek Jr. A comparative study of available software for high-accuracy homology modeling: From sequence alignments to structural models. Protein Sci., April 1, 2006; 15(4): 808 - 824. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. Wallner and A. Elofsson Identification of correct regions in protein models using structural, alignment, and consensus information Protein Sci., April 1, 2006; 15(4): 900 - 913. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				U. Pieper, N. Eswar, F. P. Davis, H. Braberg, M. S. Madhusudhan, A. Rossi, M. Marti-Renom, R. Karchin, B. M. Webb, D. Eramian, et al. MODBASE: a database of annotated comparative protein structure models and associated resources Nucleic Acids Res., January 1, 2006; 34(suppl_1): D291 - D295. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]