7CR4_C
Calmodulin-3 · P0DP25 · RCSB 7CR4 · AF-P0DP25-F1 (v6)
Blue where the experiment agrees with AlphaFold; amber-to-red where it diverges. The scale is anchored to absolute Ångströms, so hotspots are comparable across structures.
Per-residue accuracy vs. confidence
Reading along the protein chain: red is how far each residue sits from the experiment (Cα deviation in Å, higher = worse); green is local accuracy (lDDT×100); blue dotted is AlphaFold's own confidence (pLDDT). Stretches where confidence stays high but the red line is large are exactly where AlphaFold is confidently wrong.
Take-home: mean confidence pLDDT 86.83 vs. overall accuracy lDDT 0.73 and TM-score 0.53.
The metrics
Cα deviation: how far residue i sits from where the experiment places it, after superposing the whole chain. Δᵢ = |Pᵢ − (R·Qᵢ + t)| Å, with Pᵢ/Qᵢ the experimental/model Cα coordinates and R,t the best-fit rotation and translation.
per-residue lDDT: local accuracy at residue i without superposition — the fraction of i's neighbour distances (within 15 Å) the model preserves. lDDTᵢ = ¼ Σ_t 1[ |d_exp − d_model| < t ], t ∈ {0.5, 1, 2, 4} Å.
pLDDT: AlphaFold's confidence for residue i (0–100) — its own predicted lDDT, output by the network before seeing the experiment.
Is the confidence honest?
Each point is one residue: AlphaFold's predicted confidence (pLDDT, horizontal) against its actual accuracy (lDDT×100, vertical). Points on the dashed diagonal are perfectly calibrated; points well below it are overconfident — AlphaFold was surer than it should have been.
Take-home: pLDDT–lDDT correlation 0.3091 (near 1 = well calibrated; near or below 0 = confidence unrelated to, or opposite, real accuracy).
The metrics
pLDDT (x): AlphaFold's predicted per-residue confidence, 0–100. lDDT×100 (y): the accuracy actually achieved at that residue. Perfect calibration puts every point on the diagonal pLDDTᵢ = 100·lDDTᵢ.
Calibration correlation: the headline is the Pearson correlation of the two across all residues. r = cov(pLDDT, lDDT) / (σ_pLDDT · σ_lDDT) — near 1 means confidence tracks accuracy honestly; ≤ 0 means it does not.
Where the shape differs
The difference between the experimental and predicted residue–residue distance maps (Å). Bright regions mark pairs of residues whose separation AlphaFold got wrong — often a whole domain placed in the wrong position relative to the rest of the structure.
Take-home: mean distance-map difference 4.62 Å.
The metric
Distance-matrix difference: each cell is how much the separation of residues i and j differs between prediction and experiment. |Dᵢⱼ^exp − Dᵢⱼ^model|, where Dᵢⱼ = |rᵢ − rⱼ| is the distance between the two residues. Superposition-free, so a domain in the wrong place shows up as a bright off-diagonal block rather than being averaged away.
All metrics
Global fold agreement
| TM-score (norm. experiment) | 0.53 |
| TM-score (norm. model) | 0.51 |
| TM-score (norm. shorter) | 0.53 |
| TM-score (norm. longer) | 0.51 |
| Cα-RMSD (Å) | 11.52 |
| backbone-RMSD (Å) | 11.46 |
| all-atom-RMSD (Å) | 11.88 |
| core-RMSD (Å) | 0.75 |
| core fraction | 0.29 |
| GDT_TS | 11.54 |
| GDT_HA | 1.92 |
| MaxSub | 0.69 |
| structural overlap (3.5 Å) | 0.06 |
Local, superposition-free
| lDDT | 0.73 |
| contact-map Jaccard | 0.54 |
| contact precision | 0.82 |
| contact recall | 0.62 |
| distance-matrix mean Δ (Å) | 4.62 |
| CAD-score (approx) | 0.70 |
Backbone & secondary structure
| SS agreement Q3 (%) | 88.81 |
| mean Δφ (°) | 12.00 |
| mean Δψ (°) | 18.10 |
| torsion within 30° (frac) | 0.80 |
| Rg experiment (Å) | 18.03 |
| Rg model (Å) | 21.21 |
| ΔRg (Å) | 3.18 |
Confidence calibration
| mean pLDDT | 86.83 |
| pLDDT↔lDDT Pearson | 0.31 |
| pLDDT↔lDDT Spearman | -0.01 |
Context & headline
| coverage of model | 0.96 |
| coverage of experiment | 1.00 |
| seq identity aligned (%) | 100.00 |
| confidently-wrong residue frac | 0.87 |
| FRAUD score | 0.56 |
Deposited 2020-08-12 · released 2020-09-16 · EM · 3.9 Å · closest pre-cutoff chain: 1IQ5_1