. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Jul 4.

Published in final edited form as: J Biomol NMR. 2013 Jun 2;56(3):227–241. doi: 10.1007/s10858-013-9741-y

Table 1.

Comparison of TALOS+ and TALOS-N predictions.^a

	Consistent		Ambiguous	<sd> ^b (φ/ψ)	Rmsd ^c (φ/ψ)

	Total	Bad	Warning
For chemical shift database

TALOS+	84.5% ^d	4.1% ^e	15.5% ^d	12.4/11.9	13.6/12.5
TALOS-N	90.7% ^d [86.6%/4.1%]	3.5% ^e [2.9%/21%]	9.3% ^d	8.7/8.5	12.3/12.1 (11.7/11.4)

For 34-protein validation dataset

TALOS+	84.7% ^d	4.2% ^e	15.3% ^d	12.5/12.0	13.7/12.7
TALOS-N	91.4% ^d [87.5%/3.9%]	3.5% ^e [2.8%/23%]	8.6% ^d	8.5/8.3	12.2/12.1 (11.7/11.5)

TALOS+ and TALOS-N predictions were performed for the 580-protein chemical shift database and for a separate 34-protein validation dataset.

Average standard deviation of φ/ψ torsion angles among the 10 or 25 best matched tripeptides/heptapeptides for “Good” TALOS+/TALOS-N predictions, representing the average precision of the predictions. See footnote e for the definition of a good/bad prediction.

Rmsd values between TALOS+/TALOS-N predicted φ/ψ angles (“Good” predictions only) and φ/ψ angles observed in the reference structures, representing the average accuracy of the predictions; values in parenthesis correspond to residues for which both both TALOS+ and TALOS-N reported “Good” predictions.

Fraction of “consistently” predicted residues relative to the total number of residues for which predictions are calculated. Percentages for the “Strong” and “Generous” TALOS-N predictions are given in square brackets.

Percentage relative to the total number of “consistently” predicted residues (“Good”+”Bad”). A “bad” prediction is defined based on the criterion sqrt[(φ_obs − φ_pred)² + (ψ_obs − ψ_pred) ²] > 60°; otherwise the prediction is defined as “good”. Percentages for the “Strong” and “Generous” TALOS-N predictions are given in square brackets.