Results
  model coordinates only   fit to EM map   vs reference structure   vs other models   ligands   Comparative Analyses
         help
  Model Ranks (per target)   Models Pair-wise Comparison   Scores Pair-wise Comparison   Group Ranks (across targets)
 
Score Weights:
·ligands
Q-score (PTQ):
Q-score (F86):
Q-score (PEE):
(MP)HOH clash:
·model coordinates only
(MP)clash:
(MP)Ram.out:
(MP)Ram.fv:
(MP)Rot.out:
(MP)MP_score:
Cablam(Conf-out):
Cablam(Cα-out):
MOGUL composite:
MOGUL complete:
MM (strain energy):
NNP (strain energy):
PH4 (pharmacore):
·fit to EM map
CCC:
SMOC:
box_CC:
CC_mask:
CC_vol:
CC_peaks:
EMRinger:
AtmIncl(All):
AtmIncl(BB):
Q-score:
LIVQ5 (Q-score for ligand + 5A vicinity):
LIVQ10 (Q-score for ligand + 10A vicinity):
·vs reference structure (mono), vs other models
GDT_TS:
GDT_HA:
GDC_ALL:
GDC_SC:
LDDT:
CAD:
RMSD(Cα):
DAVIS_QA:
·vs reference structure (multi)
(HB)Prec.:
(HB)Jaccard:
(HB)Prec.(>6):
(HB)Jaccard(>6):
        
#     Group
    Code		     Group
    Name		     No.
    Targets		     Sum(Z-scores)     Rank(Sum)     Avg(Z-scores)     Rank(Avg)
1 EM003 dimaio 3 2.456 1 0.819 1
2 EM016 kumar 1 0.715 11 0.715 2
3 EM012 palmer 3 1.932 2 0.644 3
4 EM010 chojnowski 3 1.814 3 0.605 4
5 EM005 chiu 3 1.797 4 0.599 5
6 EM009 phenix 3 1.703 5 0.568 6
7 EM014 kao 2 1.117 8 0.558 7
8 EM006 mattbaker 3 1.591 6 0.530 8
9 EM008 emsley 3 1.423 7 0.474 9
10 EM013 singharoy 2 0.942 9 0.471 10
11 EM015 schroeder 1 0.445 12 0.445 11
12 EM011 igaev 3 0.823 10 0.274 12
13 EM001 kihara 3 -0.269 13 -0.090 13
14 EM007 perez 3 -1.386 14 -0.462 14
15 EM002 si 3 -2.122 16 -0.707 15
16 EM004 cheng 3 -3.082 17 -1.027 16
17 EM017 weyand 1 -1.623 15 -1.623 17
EMDataResource
Sponsored by the US National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIH/NIGMS)
Please address any questions or queries to:
© 2015-2021