| Â | Ranknat | RMSDbest | Znat | CCnat | FEnat (%) |
|---|
LoCo BEST
| 12.0 | 1.51 | 1.870 | 0.529 | 38.4 |
LoCo WORST
| 17.5 | 3.09 | 1.445 | 0.403 | 30.0 |
LoCo AVERAGE
| 13.9 | 2.36 | 1.659 | 0.496 | 34.5 |
LoCo CHOSEN
| 13.4 | 1.62 | 1.805 | 0.519 | 36.6 |
DFMAC
| 6.7 | 1.17 | 2.630 | 0.562 | 38.3 |
RF_CB_SRS_OD
| 19.3 | 2.68 | 1.508 | 0.464 | 31.3 |
ProSa 2003
| 44.0 | 2.39 | 1.288 | 0.491 | 33.8 |
Server BEST
| 28.5 | 3.12 | 0.797 | 0.410 | 26.3 |
Server WORST
| 248.3 | 5.77 | 0.014 | 0.159 | 7.5 |
Server AVERAGE
| 63.3 | 4.27 | 0.521 | 0.324 | 19.9 |
- Best, worst and average performance for LoCo across all 84 parameter sets tested is compared with the chosen LoCo parameter set, the three best-performing of the other potentials, and the best, worst and average performance of all 26 remaining potentials from the Jernigan Lab server. All best, worst, and average values are for each individual performance measure; no single set contained all those values. All reported measures are averages over the 77 decoy sets in the final testing group. All metrics are defined in Performance measures at the end of Methods. In summary, lower scores are better for Ranknat and RMSDbest. Higher ones are better for Znat, CCnat and FEnat. The average performance across all 84 versions of LoCo surpassed that every other function except DFMAC. Even at its worst, performance for LoCo exceeded that of all Jernigan server functions for every measure except CCnat.
