The Critical Assessment of Techniques for Protein Structure Prediction (CASP) experiment has been conducted for the third time. An obvious question is whether there has been progress from CASP1 to CASP3. An analysis depends on many variables, including prediction category, number and difficulty of targets, methods used to evaluate prediction success, and the rules for submission. It also depends on whether progress is measured in terms of all predictions submitted or in terms of the best predictions for each target. The progress made by individual groups is another interesting issue. In view of this complexity and the limited amount of data, an objective estimate of progress is difficult to obtain. Despite such difficulties, some estimate of progress is desirable. Here, we present an attempt to quantify progress in the fold‐recognition category from CASP1 to CASP3. The numbers indicate clear progress from CASP1 to CASP2 but no improvement from CASP2 to CASP3. However, we argue that the targets in CASP3 are more difficult compared with CASP2, which translates into better performance of CASP3 over CASP2. Proteins Suppl 1999;3:226–230. © 1999 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.
Proteins: Structure Function and Bioinformatics – Wiley
Published: Jan 1, 1999
Keywords: structure comparison; structure similarity; prediction; evaluation
It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.
Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.
All for just $49/month
Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly
Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.
All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.
“Whoa! It’s like Spotify but for academic articles.”@Phil_Robichaud