l - People

different values of
!
" * and generated 20 different ROC curves. We report the average
and standard deviation of the HingeMaster parameters in " * .
Results
Weighting and evaluation of predictors
The fitting of " HAG and " * was carried out as described above. The averages and
standard deviations of the resulting weighting factors are shown in Table 4.2. We
! !
evaluate the predictors using the statistical measures of sensitivity (true positives/gold
standard positives), specificity (true negatives/gold standard negatives), and p-value (see
discussion) in Table 4.3. Note that these were computed under the strict criterion,
meaning that a test positive was considered to be a false positive if it coincided with a
non-hinge residue, even if it was immediately adjacent to an annotated hinge residue. The
statistical measures are explained in detail in the Supplementary methods section and in
prior work. The 20 ROC curves generated for the HingeMaster cross-validation are
shown in Figure 4.2.
Although the above summarizes the results of the various predictors, it is illustrative to
review the results of the various predictors individually, for the 40 proteins in the HAG.
We made an online gallery of results for that purpose at http://molmovdb.org/HAG.
Links in this table for each protein in HAG lead to a morph page showing the motion
between open and closed form of the protein, results of running the various predictors on
!
the open and closed conformation, and the Protein Data Bank (PDB) information page for
181