Motivation: The assessment of protein structure prediction techniques requires objective criteria to measure the similarity between a computational model and the experimentally determined reference structure. Conventional similarity measures based on a global superposition of carbon α atoms are strongly influenced by domain motions and do not assess the accuracy of local atomic details in the model.Results: The Local Distance Difference Test (lDDT) is a superposition-free score that evaluates local distance differences of all atoms in a model, including validation of stereochemical plausibility. The reference can be a single structure, or an ensemble of equivalent structures. We demonstrate that lDDT is well suited to assess local model quality, even in the presence of domain movements, while maintaining good correlation with global measures. These properties make lDDT a robust tool for the automated assessment of structure prediction servers without manual intervention.Availability and implementation: Source code, binaries for Linux and MacOSX, and an interactive web server are available at http://swissmodel.expasy.org/lddtContact: torsten.schwede@unibas.chSupplementary information: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

The article presents an assessment of the ability of the thirty-seven model quality assessment (MQA) methods participating in CASP10 to provide an a priori estimation of the quality of structural models, and of the 67 tertiary structure prediction groups to provide confidence estimates for their predicted coordinates. The assessment of MQA predictors is based on the methods used in previous CASPs, such as correlation between the predicted and observed quality of the models (both at the global and local levels), accuracy of methods in distinguishing between good and bad models as well as good and bad regions within them, and ability to identify the best models in the decoy sets. Several numerical evaluations were used in our analysis for the first time, such as comparison of global and local quality predictors with reference (baseline) predictors and a ROC analysis of the predictors' ability to differentiate between the well and poorly modeled regions. For the evaluation of the reliability of self-assessment of the coordinate errors, we used the correlation between the predicted and observed deviations of the coordinates and a ROC analysis of correctly identified errors in the models. A modified two-stage procedure for testing MQA methods in CASP10 whereby a small number of models spanning the whole range of model accuracy was released first followed by the release of a larger number of models of more uniform quality, allowed a more thorough analysis of abilities and inabilities of different types of methods. Clustering methods were shown to have an advantage over the single- and quasi-single- model methods on the larger datasets. At the same time, the evaluation revealed that the size of the dataset has smaller influence on the global quality assessment scores (for both clustering and nonclustering methods), than its diversity. Narrowing the quality range of the assessed models caused significant decrease in accuracy of ranking for global quality predictors but essentially did not change the results for local predictors. Self-assessment error estimates submitted by the majority of groups were poor overall, with two research groups showing significantly better results than the remaining ones.

Every second year, the community experiment "Critical Assessment of Techniques for Structure Prediction" (CASP) is conducting an independent blind assessment of structure prediction methods, providing a framework for comparing the performance of different approaches and discussing the latest developments in the field. Yet, developers of automated computational modeling methods clearly benefit from more frequent evaluations based on larger sets of data. The "Continuous Automated Model EvaluatiOn (CAMEO)" platform complements the CASP experiment by conducting fully automated blind prediction assessments based on the weekly pre-release of sequences of those structures, which are going to be published in the next release of the PDB Protein Data Bank. CAMEO publishes weekly benchmarking results based on models collected during a 4-day prediction window, on average assessing ca. 100 targets during a time frame of 5 weeks. CAMEO benchmarking data is generated consistently for all participating methods at the same point in time, enabling developers to benchmark and cross-validate their method's performance, and directly refer to the benchmarking results in publications. In order to facilitate server development and promote shorter release cycles, CAMEO sends weekly email with submission statistics and low performance warnings. Many participants of CASP have successfully employed CAMEO when preparing their methods for upcoming community experiments. CAMEO offers a variety of scores to allow benchmarking diverse aspects of structure prediction methods. By introducing new scoring schemes, CAMEO facilitates new development in areas of active research, for example, modeling quaternary structure, complexes, or ligand binding sites.

The paper presents assessment of the model accuracy estimation methods participating in CASP11. The results of the assessment are expected to be useful to both – developers of the methods and users who way too often are presented with structural models without annotations of accuracy. The main emphasis is placed on the ability of techniques to identify the best models from among several available. Bivariate descriptive statistics and ROC analysis are used to additionally assess the overall correctness of the predicted model accuracy scores, the correlation between the predicted and observed accuracy of models, the effectiveness in distinguishing between good and bad models, the ability to discriminate between reliable and unreliable regions in models, and the accuracy of the coordinate error self-estimates. A rigid-body measure (GDT_TS) and three local-structure based scores (LDDT, CADaa, and Sphere Grinder) are used as reference measures for evaluating methods' performance. Consensus methods, taking advantage of the availability of several models for the same target protein, perform well on the majority of tasks. Methods that predict accuracy on the basis of a single model perform comparably to consensus methods in picking the best models and in the estimation of how accurate is the local structure. More groups than in previous experiments submitted reasonable error estimates of their own models, most likely in response to a recommendation from CASP and the increasing demand from users.