Table 3.
LoopIng performance using native and modeled protein structure
| Loop length (# of cases) | Looping_Native (a) Å |
Looping_Model (b) Å |
ΔRMSD ≤ 0.1 Å (c) | ΔRMSD ≤ 0.5 Å (d) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | (%) | (%) | |
| 4 (47) | 0.58 | 0.44 | 0.59 | 0.67 | 54 | 78 |
| 5 (33) | 0.40 | 0.39 | 0.48 | 0.42 | 79 | 92 |
| 6(21) | 1.23 | 0.71 | 1.61 | 0.57 | 48 | 88 |
| 7(20) | 1.44 | 1.00 | 1.77 | 0.65 | 45 | 65 |
| 8(9) | 1.55 | 0.99 | 2.08 | 0.93 | 33 | 33 |
| Overall (130) | 0.97 | 0.80 | 1.1 | 0.75 | 55 | 73 |
The performance, in terms of backbone RMSD with respect to the native loop conformation, using (a) the native structure for the remaining portion of the protein (LoopIng_Native) and (b) the best CASP10 predicted model (LoopIng_Model). (c) Percentage of cases where the RMSD difference between LoopIng_Native and LoopIng_Model is ≤ 0.1 Å. (d) Percentage of cases where the RMSD difference between LoopIng_Native and LoopIng_Model ≤ is 0.5 Å.