Skip to main content
. 2023 Sep 7;6:188. doi: 10.1038/s42004-023-00991-6

Fig. 2. In-depth analysis of the sampling methods.

Fig. 2

a The comparison between the TM-scores of the best models generated by each MSA and template sampling method and the NBIS-AF2-standard on the common full-length targets. The per-target mean (or median) TM-score of each sampling method and the NBIS-AF2-standard is located and reported by the black dot in the box (or located by a vertical line). b The comparison between the TM-scores of the top1 (rank1) models generated by each MSA and template sampling method and the NBIS-AF2-standard on the common full-length targets. The per-target mean (or median) TM-score of each sampling method and the NBIS-AF2-standard is located and reported by the black dot in the box (or located by a vertical line). c The TM-score difference between the top1 model selected by AlphaFold2 pLDDT score in combine are plotted against the top1 model of the NBIS-AF2-standard. The number of models in the combine are specified near the boxes for each target. d The comparison between the TM-scores of the top1 models generated by original, ori_seq_temp, default_seq_temp, default, colabfold and colab_seq_temp on the common 58 full-length targets ordered by the average top1 TM-scores. The per-target mean (or median) TM-score of each sampling method is located and reported by the black dot in the box (or located by a vertical line). e The average pairwise similarity score (PSS) of models from combine, default, default_seq_temp, original, ori_seq_temp, colabfold and colab_seq_temp on each of the 58 common targets. If the average PSS values are almost the same, the dots denoting the values for a target overlap. In this case, the average PSS of the models from combine (red dot) is plotted on the top covering the other dots denoting the almost same values.

HHS Vulnerability Disclosure