Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2010 Apr 24.
Published in final edited form as: J Mol Biol. 2009 Feb 20;388(1):180–194. doi: 10.1016/j.jmb.2009.02.031

Table 2.

Benchmark.

Assembly Component modeling Coarse-grained sampling Fine-grained sampling
Assembly (name, PDB entry) # component s % Seq. Id. average rangea Cα RMSD (Å) average rangeb NO3.5 (%) average rangeb Rankc Optimization (assembly placement score) Rankc Optimization (assembly placement score)
Chaperonin GroEL, 1oel 3 domains 65 60–72 0.9 0.2–1.0 96 92–100 1 (2.6, 13) 1 (2.6, 13)
SUMO-RanGAP1-Ubc9-Nup358/RanBP 2 complex, 1z5s 4 proteins 100 100– 100 0.0 0.0–0.0 10
0
100–100 1 (5.9, 113) 1 (5.0, 67)
SUMO-RanGAP1-Ubc9-Nup358/ArnBP2 complex, 1z5s 4 proteins 37 18–56 7.9 1.2–15.0 52 13–98 3 (7.7, 92) 3 (6.4, 62)
Dihydropyrimid ine Dehydrogenase, 1gte 5 domains 100 100– 100 0.0 0.0–0.0 10
0
100–100 1 (2.6,4) 1 (2.6, 4)
Archaeon Methanopyrus kandleri,1e6v 6 proteins 61 57–68 0.0 0.0–0.0 10
0
100–100 1 (2.5, 8) 1 (2.5, 8)
Arp2/3 complex, 1tyq 7 proteins 51 16–99 7.9 0.4–21.4 70 38–100 10 (10.8, 136) 4 (7.1, 25)
a

The average, minimum, and maximum percentage of sequence identity between the assembly components and their templates.

b

The average, minimum, and maximum Cα RMSD and native overlap NO3.5 between the modeled components superposed on their corresponding component in the native assembly.

c

The rank of a model with mapping score 0.