Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2010 Feb 22.
Published in final edited form as: Proteins. 2008 Oct;73(1):228–240. doi: 10.1002/prot.22057

Table II. Decoy Quality Comparison Between the HMM Model17 and CRFSampler.

Test proteins HMMa CRFSamplerb CRFSamplerc




Name, PDB code L α,β Good (%) Best (Å) Good (%) Best (Å) Good (%) Best (Å)
Protein A, 1FC2 43 2,0 9.59 2.7 20.9 2.08 24.8 2.09
Homeodomain, 1ENH 54 2,0 6.60 2.5 6.23 2.68 14.0 1.98
Protein G, 2GB1 56 1,4 0.04 4.9 0.16 4.67 10.1 3.36
Cro repressor, 2CRO 65 5,0 0.46 3.9 1.94 4.05 13.3 2.37
Protein L7/L12, 1CTF 68 3,1 0.01 5.4 0.04 4.94 0.15 4.49
Calbidin, 4ICB 76 4,0 0.09 4.3 0.17 4.57 0.42 4.72

Only sequence information is used in both training and testing. In total, 100,000 decoys are generated by the HMM model.

Columns 1–3 list name and PDB code, length and number of α-helices and β-strands of the test proteins. Columns “Good” and “Best” list the percentage of good decoys (with RMSD ≤ 6 Å) and the RMSD of the best decoy, respectively.

a

Trained and tested using primary sequence and the results are taken from Ref. 17.

b

Trained and tested using primary sequence and 40,000 decoys are generated.

c

Trained and tested using PSI-BLAST sequence profile. Only 20,000 decoys are generated.