Motivation: Model quality assessment programs are used to predict the quality of modeled protein structures. They can be divided into two groups depending on the information they are using: ensemble methods using consensus of many alternative models and methods only using a single model to do its prediction. The consensus methods excel in achieving high correlations between prediction and true quality measures. However, they frequently fail to pick out the best possible model, nor can they be used to generate and score new structures. Single-model methods on the other hand do not have these inherent shortcomings and can be used both to sample new structures and to improve existing consensus methods. Results: Here, we present an implementation of the ProQ2 program to estimate both local and global model accuracy as part of the Rosetta modeling suite. The current implementation does not only make it possible to run large batch runs locally, but it also opens up a whole new arena for conformational sampling using machine learned scoring functions and to incorporate model accuracy estimation in to various existing modeling schemes. ProQ2 participated in CASP11 and results from CASP11 are used to benchmark the current implementation. Based on results from CASP11 and CAMEO-QE, a continuous benchmark of quality estimation methods, it is clear that ProQ2 is the single-model method that performs best in both local and global model accuracy.

Quality assessment of protein models using no other information than the structure of the model itself has been shown to be useful for structure prediction. Here, we introduce two novel methods, ProQRosFA and ProQRosCen, inspired by the state-of-art method ProQ2, but using a completely different description of a protein model. ProQ2 uses contacts and other features calculated from a model, while the new predictors are based on Rosetta energies: ProQRosFA uses the full-atom energy function that takes into account all atoms, while ProQRosCen uses the coarse-grained centroid energy function. The two new predictors also include residue conservation and terms corresponding to the agreement of a model with predicted secondary structure and surface area, as in ProQ2. We show that the performance of these predictors is on par with ProQ2 and significantly better than all other model quality assessment programs. Furthermore, we show that combining the input features from all three predictors, the resulting predictor ProQ3 performs better than any of the individual methods. ProQ3, ProQRosFA and ProQRosCen are freely available both as a webserver and stand-alone programs at http://proq3.bioinfo.se/.

Protein modeling quality is an important part of protein structure prediction. We have for more than a decade developed a set of methods for this problem. We have used various types of description of the protein and different machine learning methodologies. However, common to all these methods has been the target function used for training. The target function in ProQ describes the local quality of a residue in a protein model. In all versions of ProQ the target function has been the S-score. However, other quality estimation functions also exist, which can be divided into superposition- and contact-based methods. The superposition-based methods, such as S-score, are based on a rigid body superposition of a protein model and the native structure, while the contact-based methods compare the local environment of each residue. Here, we examine the effects of retraining our latest predictor, ProQ3D, using identical inputs but different target functions. We find that the contact-based methods are easier to predict and that predictors trained on these measures provide some advantages when it comes to identifying the best model. One possible reason for this is that contact based methods are better at estimating the quality of multi-domain targets. However, training on the S-score gives the best correlation with the GDT_TS score, which is commonly used in CASP to score the global model quality. To take the advantage of both of these features we provide an updated version of ProQ3D that predicts local and global model quality estimates based on different quality estimates.

Protein quality assessment is a long-standing problem in bioinformatics. For more than a decade we have developed state-of-art predictors by carefully selecting and optimising inputs to a machine learning method. The correlation has increased from 0.60 in ProQ to 0.81 in ProQ2 and 0.85 in ProQ3 mainly by adding a large set of carefully tuned descriptions of a protein. Here, we show that a substantial improvement can be obtained using exactly the same inputs as in ProQ2 or ProQ3 but replacing the support vector machine by a deep neural network. This improves the Pearson correlation to 0.90 (0.85 using ProQ2 input features).