DPI-score: A deep learning-based metric for assessing protein-protein interfaces in cryo-EM derived assemblies
Bhujel, N.; Whyatt, N.; Joseph, A. P.; Elliott, L.; Sabapathy, T.; Thiyagalingam, J.; Malhotra, S.
Show abstract
AbstractAdvances in sample preparation, data acquisition, and data processing have led to a surge of high-resolution cryoEM (cryogenic electron microscopy) derived structures. Although the global resolution continues to improve, local resolution within a map generally varies, and many structures are still resolved at intermediate resolution. Model building and refinement are usually challenging at lower resolutions (>=3 [A]), and therefore, atomic model validation is crucial. CryoEM-derived assemblies often contain extensive protein-protein interfaces, yet no established metrics specifically assess the quality of these interfaces. Existing metrics typically focus on fit to density or overall model quality, such as geometry, but do not directly evaluate the protein-protein interfaces in these assemblies. To address this, a Deep learning-based Protein Interface score (DPI-Score) is presented. The proposed approach only requires the raw structural coordinates of the interface atoms without any derived features for training and inference, and achieves 87.53% validation accuracy. The developed interface focused, density independent metric is systematically compared to existing protein interface scoring functions and density dependent model validation scores. It is extensively tested for its performance to distinguish target-like interfaces from a pool of predicted models (cryoEM oligomeric targets from CASP15 and CASP16) and score fitted structures generated using rigid body fitting. We further applied it to assess 29,120 interfaces from the 6,011 fitted entries (worse than 3 [A]) associated with depositions in the Electron Microscopy Data Bank. DPI-score provides complementary information to other scores and is able to detect errors at the interfaces in modelled assemblies that were not identified using density-based scores alone. The source code for model validation is freely available for academic use on Git-Lab at https://gitlab.com/ccpem/dpi or via the CCP-EM software suite, Doppio, at https://www.ccpem.ac.uk/software.
Matching journals
The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Assembly of Protein Complexes In and On the Membrane with Predicted Spatial Arrangement Constraints 96%
- Gradations in protein dynamics captured by experimental NMR are not well represented by AlphaFold2 models and other computational metrics 96%
- ModelCIF: An extension of PDBx/mmCIF data representation for computed structure models 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Improved protein complex prediction with AlphaFold-multimer by denoising the MSA profile 97%
- Hybridized distance- and contact-based hierarchical structure modeling for folding soluble and membrane proteins 96%
- Revisiting the \"satisfaction of spatial restraints\" approach of MODELLER for protein homology modeling 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Regularly updated benchmark sets for statistically correct evaluations of AlphaFold applications 96%
- To pack or not to pack: revisiting protein side-chain packing in the post-AlphaFold era 96%
- Accurate prediction of residue-residue contacts across homo-oligomeric protein interfaces through deep leaning 94%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.