Large-scale comparison of protein sequence alignment algorithms with structure alignments

Sequence alignment programs such as BLAST and PSI-BLAST are used routinely in pairwise, profile-based, or intermediate-sequence-search (ISS) methods to detect remote homologies for the purposes of fold assignment and comparative modeling. Yet, the sequence alignment quality of these methods at low sequence identity is not known. We have used the CE structure alignment program (Shindyalov and Bourne, Prot Eng 1998;11:739) to derive sequence alignments for all superfamily and family-level related proteins in the SCOP domain database. CE aligns structures and their sequences based on distances within each protein, rather than on interprotein distances. We compared BLAST, PSI-BLAST, CLUSTALW, and ISS alignments with the CE structural alignments. We found that global alignments with CLUSTALW were very poor at low sequence identity (<25%), as judged by the CE alignments. We used PSI-BLAST to search the nonredundant sequence database (nr) with every sequence in SCOP using up to four iterations. The resulting matrix was used to search a database of SCOP sequences. PSI-BLAST is only slightly better than BLAST in alignment accuracy on a per-residue basis, but PSI-BLAST matrix alignments are much longer than BLAST's, and so align correctly a larger fraction of the total number of aligned residues in the structure alignments. Any two SCOP sequences in the same superfamily that shared a hit or hits in the nr PSI-BLAST searches were identified as linked by the shared intermediate sequence. We examined the quality of the longest SCOP-query/ SCOP-hit alignment via an intermediate sequence, and found that ISS produced longer alignments than PSI-BLAST searches alone, of nearly comparable per-residue quality. At 10-15% sequence identity, BLAST correctly aligns 28%, PSI-BLAST 40%, and ISS 46% of residues according to the structure alignments. We also compared CE structure alignments with FSSP structure alignments generated by the DALI program. In contrast to the sequence methods, CE and structure alignments from the FSSP database identically align 75% of residue pairs at the 10-15% level of sequence identity, indicating that there is substantial room for improvement in these sequence alignment methods. BLAST produced alignments for 8% of the 10,665 nonimmunoglobulin SCOP superfamily sequence pairs (nearly all <25% sequence identity), PSI-BLAST matched 17% and the double-PSI-BLAST ISS method aligned 38% with E-values <10.0. The results indicate that intermediate sequences may be useful not only in fold assignment but also in achieving more complete sequence alignments for comparative modeling.     

A comparison of scoring functions for protein sequence profile alignment

MOTIVATION: In recent years, several methods have been proposed for aligning two protein sequence profiles, with reported improvements in alignment accuracy and homolog discrimination versus sequence-sequence methods (e.g. BLAST) and profile-sequence methods (e.g. PSI-BLAST). Profile-profile alignment is also the iterated step in progressive multiple sequence alignment algorithms such as CLUSTALW. However, little is known about the relative performance of different profile-profile scoring functions. In this work, we evaluate the alignment accuracy of 23 different profile-profile scoring functions by comparing alignments of 488 pairs of sequences with identity < or =30% against structural alignments. We optimize parameters for all scoring functions on the same training set and use profiles of alignments from both PSI-BLAST and SAM-T99. Structural alignments are constructed from a consensus between the FSSP database and CE structural aligner. We compare the results with sequence-sequence and sequence-profile methods, including BLAST and PSI-BLAST. RESULTS: We find that profile-profile alignment gives an average improvement over our test set of typically 2-3% over profile-sequence alignment and approximately 40% over sequence-sequence alignment. No statistically significant difference is seen in the relative performance of most of the scoring functions tested. Significantly better results are obtained with profiles constructed from SAM-T99 alignments than from PSI-BLAST alignments. AVAILABILITY: Source code, reference alignments and more detailed results are freely available at http://phylogenomics.berkeley.edu/profilealignment/     

Structure-dependent sequence alignment for remotely related proteins

MOTIVATION: The quality of a model structure derived from a comparative modeling procedure is dictated by the accuracy of the predicted sequence-template alignment. As the sequence-template pairs are increasingly remote in sequence relationship, the prediction of the sequence-template alignments becomes increasingly problematic with sequence alignment methods. Structural information of the template, used in connection with the sequence relationship of the sequence-template pair, could significantly improve the accuracy of the sequence-template alignment. In this paper, we describe a sequence-template alignment method that integrates sequence and structural information to enhance the accuracy of sequence-template alignments for distantly related protein pairs. RESULTS: The structure-dependent sequence alignment (SDSA) procedure was optimized for coverage and accuracy on a training set of 412 protein pairs; the structures for each of the training pairs are similar (RMSD< approximately 4A) but the sequence relationship is undetectable (average pair-wise sequence identity = 8%). The optimized SDSA procedure was then applied to extend PSI-BLAST local alignments by calculating the global alignments under the constraint of the residue pairs in the local alignments. This composite alignment procedure was assessed with a testing set of 1421 protein pairs, of which the pair-wise structures are similar (RMSD< approximately 4A) but the sequences are marginally related at best in each pair (average pair-wise sequence identity = 13%). The assessment showed that the composite alignment procedure predicted more aligned residues pairs with an average of 27% increase in correctly aligned residues over the standard PSI-BLAST alignments for the protein pairs in the testing set.     

Improving the quality of twilight-zone alignments

Several recent publications illustrated advantages of using sequence profiles in recognizing distant homologies between proteins. At the same time, the practical usefulness of distant homology recognition depends not only on the sensitivity of the algorithm, but also on the quality of the alignment between a prediction target and the template from the database of known proteins. Here, we study this question for several supersensitive protein algorithms that were previously compared in their recognition sensitivity (Rychlewski et al., 2000). A database of protein pairs with similar structures, but low sequence similarity is used to rate the alignments obtained with several different methods, which included sequence-sequence, sequence-profile, and profile-profile alignment methods. We show that incorporation of evolutionary information encoded in sequence profiles into alignment calculation methods significantly increases the alignment accuracy, bringing them closer to the alignments obtained from structure comparison. In general, alignment quality is correlated with recognition and alignment score significance. For every alignment method, alignments with statistically significant scores correlate with both correct structural templates and good quality alignments. At the same time, average alignment lengths differ in various methods, making the comparison between them difficult. For instance, the alignments obtained by FFAS, the profile-profile alignment algorithm developed in our group are always longer that the alignments obtained with the PSI-BLAST algorithms. To address this problem, we develop methods to truncate or extend alignments to cover a specified percentage of protein lengths. In most cases, the elongation of the alignment by profile-profile methods is reasonable, adding fragments of similar structure. The examples of erroneous alignment are examined and it is shown that they can be identified based on the model quality.     

Iterative sequence/secondary structure search for protein homologs: comparison with amino acid sequence alignments and application to fold recognition in genome databases

MOTIVATION: Sequence alignment techniques have been developed into extremely powerful tools for identifying the folding families and function of proteins in newly sequenced genomes. For a sufficiently low sequence identity it is necessary to incorporate additional structural information to positively detect homologous proteins. We have carried out an extensive analysis of the effectiveness of incorporating secondary structure information directly into the alignments for fold recognition and identification of distant protein homologs. A secondary structure similarity matrix based on a database of three-dimensionally aligned proteins was first constructed. An iterative application of dynamic programming was used which incorporates linear combinations of amino acid and secondary structure sequence similarity scores. Initially, only primary sequence information is used. Subsequently contributions from secondary structure are phased in and new homologous proteins are positively identified if their scores are consistent with the predetermined error rate. RESULTS: We used the SCOP40 database, where only PDB sequences that have 40% homology or less are included, to calibrate homology detection by the combined amino acid and secondary structure sequence alignments. Combining predicted secondary structure with sequence information results in a 8-15% increase in homology detection within SCOP40 relative to the pairwise alignments using only amino acid sequence data at an error rate of 0.01 errors per query; a 35% increase is observed when the actual secondary structure sequences are used. Incorporating predicted secondary structure information in the analysis of six small genomes yields an improvement in the homology detection of approximately 20% over SSEARCH pairwise alignments, but no improvement in the total number of homologs detected over PSI-BLAST, at an error rate of 0.01 errors per query. However, because the pairwise alignments based on combinations of amino acid and secondary structure similarity are different from those produced by PSI-BLAST and the error rates can be calibrated, it is possible to combine the results of both searches. An additional 25% relative improvement in the number of genes identified at an error rate of 0.01 is observed when the data is pooled in this way. Similarly for the SCOP40 dataset, PSI-BLAST detected 15% of all possible homologs, whereas the pooled results increased the total number of homologs detected to 19%. These results are compared with recent reports of homology detection using sequence profiling methods. AVAILABILITY: Secondary structure alignment homepage at http://lutece.rutgers.edu/ssas CONTACT: anders@rutchem.rutgers.edu; ronlevy@lutece.rutgers.edu Supplementary Information: Genome sequence/structure alignment results at http://lutece.rutgers.edu/ss_fold_predictions.     

PASS2: a semi-automated database of Protein Alignments Organised as Structural Superfamilies

PASS2 is a nearly automated version of CAMPASS and contains sequence alignments of proteins grouped at the level of superfamilies. This database has been created to fall in correspondence with SCOP database (1.53 release) and currently consists of 110 multi-member superfamilies and 613 superfamilies corresponding to single members. In multi-member superfamilies, protein chains with no more than 25% sequence identity have been considered for the alignment and hence the database aims to address sequence alignments which represent 26 219 protein domains under the SCOP 1.53 release. Structure-based sequence alignments have been obtained by COMPARER and the initial equivalences are provided automatically from a MALIGN alignment and subsequently augmented using STAMP4.0. The final sequence alignments have been annotated for the structural features using JOY4.0. Several interesting links are provided to other related databases and genome sequence relatives. Availability of reliable sequence alignments of distantly related proteins, despite poor sequence identity and single-member superfamilies, permit better sampling of structures in libraries for fold recognition of new sequences and for the understanding of protein structure–function relationships of individual superfamilies. The database can be queried by keywords and also by sequence search, interfaced by PSI-BLAST methods. Structure-annotated sequence alignments and several structural accessory files can be retrieved for all the superfamilies including the user-input sequence. The database can be accessed from http://www.ncbs.res.in/%7Efaculty/mini/campass/pass.html.     

BCL::Align—Sequence alignment and fold recognition with a custom scoring function online

BCL::Align is a multiple sequence alignment tool that utilizes the dynamic programming method in combination with a customizable scoring function for sequence alignment and fold recognition. The scoring function is a weighted sum of the traditional PAM and BLOSUM scoring matrices, position-specific scoring matrices output by PSI-BLAST, secondary structure predicted by a variety of methods, chemical properties, and gap penalties. By adjusting the weights, the method can be tailored for fold recognition or sequence alignment tasks at different levels of sequence identity. A Monte Carlo algorithm was used to determine optimized weight sets for sequence alignment and fold recognition that most accurately reproduced the SABmark reference alignment test set. In an evaluation of sequence alignment performance, BCL::Align ranked best in alignment accuracy (Cline score of 22.90 for sequences in the Twilight Zone) when compared with Align-m, ClustalW, T-Coffee, and MUSCLE. ROC curve analysis indicates BCL::Align's ability to correctly recognize protein folds with over 80% accuracy. The flexibility of the program allows it to be optimized for specific classes of proteins (e.g. membrane proteins) or fold families (e.g. TIM-barrel proteins). BCL::Align is free for academic use and available online at http://www.meilerlab.org/.     

BCL::Align-sequence alignment and fold recognition with a custom scoring function online

BCL::Align is a multiple sequence alignment tool that utilizes the dynamic programming method in combination with a customizable scoring function for sequence alignment and fold recognition. The scoring function is a weighted sum of the traditional PAM and BLOSUM scoring matrices, position-specific scoring matrices output by PSI-BLAST, secondary structure predicted by a variety of methods, chemical properties, and gap penalties. By adjusting the weights, the method can be tailored for fold recognition or sequence alignment tasks at different levels of sequence identity. A Monte Carlo algorithm was used to determine optimized weight sets for sequence alignment and fold recognition that most accurately reproduced the SABmark reference alignment test set. In an evaluation of sequence alignment performance, BCL::Align ranked best in alignment accuracy (Cline score of 22.90 for sequences in the Twilight Zone) when compared with Align-m, ClustalW, T-Coffee, and MUSCLE. ROC curve analysis indicates BCL::Align's ability to correctly recognize protein folds with over 80% accuracy. The flexibility of the program allows it to be optimized for specific classes of proteins (e.g. membrane proteins) or fold families (e.g. TIM-barrel proteins). BCL::Align is free for academic use and available online at http://www.meilerlab.org/.     

Alignment of protein sequences by their profiles

The accuracy of an alignment between two protein sequences can be improved by including other detectably related sequences in the comparison. We optimize and benchmark such an approach that relies on aligning two multiple sequence alignments, each one including one of the two protein sequences. Thirteen different protocols for creating and comparing profiles corresponding to the multiple sequence alignments are implemented in the SALIGN command of MODELLER. A test set of 200 pairwise, structure-based alignments with sequence identities below 40% is used to benchmark the 13 protocols as well as a number of previously described sequence alignment methods, including heuristic pairwise sequence alignment by BLAST, pairwise sequence alignment by global dynamic programming with an affine gap penalty function by the ALIGN command of MODELLER, sequence-profile alignment by PSI-BLAST, Hidden Markov Model methods implemented in SAM and LOBSTER, pairwise sequence alignment relying on predicted local structure by SEA, and multiple sequence alignment by CLUSTALW and COMPASS. The alignment accuracies of the best new protocols were significantly better than those of the other tested methods. For example, the fraction of the correctly aligned residues relative to the structure-based alignment by the best protocol is 56%, which can be compared with the accuracies of 26%, 42%, 43%, 48%, 50%, 49%, 43%, and 43% for the other methods, respectively. The new method is currently applied to large-scale comparative protein structure modeling of all known sequences.     

Exploring the sequence-structure protein landscape in the glycosyltransferase family

To understand the molecular basis of glycosyltransferases' (GTFs) catalytic mechanism, extensive structural information is required. Here, fold recognition methods were employed to assign 3D protein shapes (folds) to the currently known GTF sequences, available in public databases such as GenBank and Swissprot. First, GTF sequences were retrieved and classified into clusters, based on sequence similarity only. Intracluster sequence similarity was chosen sufficiently high to ensure that the same fold is found within a given cluster. Then, a representative sequence from each cluster was selected to compose a subset of GTF sequences. The members of this reduced set were processed by three different fold recognition methods: 3D-PSSM, FUGUE, and GeneFold. Finally, the results from different fold recognition methods were analyzed and compared to sequence-similarity search methods (i.e., BLAST and PSI-BLAST). It was established that the folds of about 70% of all currently known GTF sequences can be confidently assigned by fold recognition methods, a value which is higher than the fold identification rate based on sequence comparison alone (48% for BLAST and 64% for PSI-BLAST). The identified folds were submitted to 3D clustering, and we found that most of the GTF sequences adopt the typical GTF A or GTF B folds. Our results indicate a lack of evidence that new GTF folds (i.e., folds other than GTF A and B) exist. Based on cases where fold identification was not possible, we suggest several sequences as the most promising targets for a structural genomics initiative focused on the GTF protein family.     

Protein homology detection and fold inference through multiple alignment entropy profiles

Homology detection and protein structure prediction are central themes in bioinformatics. Establishment of relationship between protein sequences or prediction of their structure by sequence comparison methods finds limitations when there is low sequence similarity. Recent works demonstrate that the use of profiles improves homology detection and protein structure prediction. Profiles can be inferred from protein multiple alignments using different approaches. The "Conservatism-of-Conservatism" is an effective profile analysis method to identify structural features between proteins having the same fold but no detectable sequence similarity. The information obtained from protein multiple alignments varies according to the amino acid classification employed to calculate the profile. In this work, we calculated entropy profiles from PSI-BLAST-derived multiple alignments and used different amino acid classifications summarizing almost 500 different attributes. These entropy profiles were converted into pseudocodes which were compared using the FASTA program with an ad-hoc matrix. We tested the performance of our method to identify relationships between proteins with similar fold using a nonredundant subset of sequences having less than 40% of identity. We then compared our results using Coverage Versus Error per query curves, to those obtained by methods like PSI-BLAST, COMPASS and HHSEARCH. Our method, named HIP (Homology Identification with Profiles) presented higher accuracy detecting relationships between proteins with the same fold. The use of different amino acid classifications reflecting a large number of amino acid attributes, improved the recognition of distantly related folds. We propose the use of pseudocodes representing profile information as a fast and powerful tool for homology detection, fold assignment and analysis of evolutionary information enclosed in protein profiles.     

Fold recognition with minimal gaps

Here we present a simplified form of threading that uses only a 20 x 20 two-body residue-based potential and restricted number of gaps. Despite its simplicity and transparency the Monte Carlo-based threading algorithm performs very well in a rigorous test of fold recognition. The results suggest that by simplifying and constraining the decoy space, one can achieve better fold recognition. Fold recognition results are compared with and supplemented by a PSI-BLAST search. The statistical significance of threading results is rigorously evaluated from statistics of extremes by comparison with optimal alignments of a large set of randomly shuffled sequences. The statistical theory, based on the Random Energy Model, yields a cumulative statistical parameter, epsilon, that attests to the likelihood of correct fold recognition. A large epsilon indicates a significant energy gap between the optimal alignment and decoy alignments and, consequently, a high probability that the fold is correctly recognized. For a particular number of gaps, the epsilon parameter reaches its maximal value, and the fold is recognized. As the number of gaps further increases, the likelihood of correct fold recognition drops off. This is because the decoy space is small when gaps are restricted to a small number, but the native alignment is still well approximated, whereas unrestricted increase of the number of gaps leads to rapid growth of the number of decoys and their statistical dominance over the correct alignment. It is shown that best results are obtained when a combination of one-, two-, and three-gap threading is used. To this end, use of the epsilon parameter is crucial for rigorous comparison of results across the different decoy spaces belonging to a different number of gaps.     

Profile-profile methods provide improved fold-recognition: a study of different profile-profile alignment methods

To improve the detection of related proteins, it is often useful to include evolutionary information for both the query and target proteins. One method to include this information is by the use of profile-profile alignments, where a profile from the query protein is compared with the profiles from the target proteins. Profile-profile alignments can be implemented in several fundamentally different ways. The similarity between two positions can be calculated using a dot-product, a probabilistic model, or an information theoretical measure. Here, we present a large-scale comparison of different profile-profile alignment methods. We show that the profile-profile methods perform at least 30% better than standard sequence-profile methods both in their ability to recognize superfamily-related proteins and in the quality of the obtained alignments. Although the performance of all methods is quite similar, profile-profile methods that use a probabilistic scoring function have an advantage as they can create good alignments and show a good fold recognition capacity using the same gap-penalties, while the other methods need to use different parameters to obtain comparable performances.     

Improving taxonomy-based protein fold recognition by using global and local features

Fold recognition from amino acid sequences plays an important role in identifying protein structures and functions. The taxonomy-based method, which classifies a query protein into one of the known folds, has been shown very promising for protein fold recognition. However, extracting a set of highly discriminative features from amino acid sequences remains a challenging problem. To address this problem, we developed a new taxonomy-based protein fold recognition method called TAXFOLD. It extensively exploits the sequence evolution information from PSI-BLAST profiles and the secondary structure information from PSIPRED profiles. A comprehensive set of 137 features is constructed, which allows for the depiction of both global and local characteristics of PSI-BLAST and PSIPRED profiles. We tested TAXFOLD on four datasets and compared it with several major existing taxonomic methods for fold recognition. Its recognition accuracies range from 79.6 to 90% for 27, 95, and 194 folds, achieving an average 6.9% improvement over the best available taxonomic method. Further test on the Lindahl benchmark dataset shows that TAXFOLD is comparable with the best conventional template-based threading method at the SCOP fold level. These experimental results demonstrate that the proposed set of features is highly beneficial to protein fold recognition.     

The use of structure information to increase alignment accuracy does not aid homologue detection with profile HMMs

MOTIVATION: The best quality multiple sequence alignments are generally considered to derive from structural superposition. However, no previous work has studied the relative performance of profile hidden Markov models (HMMs) derived from such alignments. Therefore several alignment methods have been used to generate multiple sequence alignments from 348 structurally aligned families in the HOMSTRAD database. The performance of profile HMMs derived from the structural and sequence-based alignments has been assessed for homologue detection. RESULTS: The best alignment methods studied here correctly align nearly 80% of residues with respect to structure alignments. Alignment quality and model sensitivity are found to be dependent on average number, length, and identity of sequences in the alignment. The striking conclusion is that, although structural data may improve the quality of multiple sequence alignments, this does not add to the ability of the derived profile HMMs to find sequence homologues. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A list of HOMSTRAD families used in this study and the corresponding Pfam families is available at http://www.sanger.ac.uk/Users/sgj/alignments/map.html Contact: sgj@sanger.ac.uk     

Alignments grow, secondary structure prediction improves.

Using information from sequence alignments significantly improves protein secondary structure prediction. Typically, more divergent profiles yield better predictions. Recently, various groups have shown that accuracy can be improved significantly by using PSI-BLAST profiles to develop new prediction methods. Here, we focused on the influences of various alignment strategies on two 8-year-old PHD methods. The following results stood out. (i) PHD using pairwise alignments predicts about 72% of all residues correctly in one of the three states: helix, strand, and other. Using larger databases and PSI-BLAST raised accuracy to 75%. (ii) More than 60% of the improvement originated from the growth of current sequence databases; about 20% resulted from detailed changes in the alignment procedure (substitution matrix, thresholds, and gap penalties). Another 20% of the improvement resulted from carefully using iterated PSI-BLAST searches. (iii) It is of interest that we failed to improve prediction accuracy further when attempting to refine the alignment by dynamic programming (MaxHom and ClustalW). (iv) Improvement through family growth appears to saturate at some point. However, most families have not reached this saturation. Hence, we anticipate that prediction accuracy will continue to rise with database growth.     

Evaluation of PSI-BLAST alignment accuracy in comparison to structural alignments

The PSI-BLAST algorithm has been acknowledged as one of the most powerful tools for detecting remote evolutionary relationships by sequence considerations only. This has been demonstrated by its ability to recognize remote structural homologues and by the greatest coverage it enables in annotation of a complete genome. Although recognizing the correct fold of a sequence is of major importance, the accuracy of the alignment is crucial for the success of modeling one sequence by the structure of its remote homologue. Here we assess the accuracy of PSI-BLAST alignments on a stringent database of 123 structurally similar, sequence-dissimilar pairs of proteins, by comparing them to the alignments defined on a structural basis. Each protein sequence is compared to a nonredundant database of the protein sequences by PSI-BLAST. Whenever a pair member detects its pair-mate, the positions that are aligned both in the sequential and structural alignments are determined, and the alignment sensitivity is expressed as the percentage of these positions out of the structural alignment. Fifty-two sequences detected their pair-mates (for 16 pairs the success was bi-directional when either pair member was used as a query). The average percentage of correctly aligned residues per structural alignment was 43.5+/-2.2%. Other properties of the alignments were also examined, such as the sensitivity vs. specificity and the change in these parameters over consecutive iterations. Notably, there is an improvement in alignment sensitivity over consecutive iterations, reaching an average of 50.9+/-2.5% within the five iterations tested in the current study.     

A comparison of position-specific score matrices based on sequence and structure alignments

Sequence comparison methods based on position-specific score matrices (PSSMs) have proven a useful tool for recognition of the divergent members of a protein family and for annotation of functional sites. Here we investigate one of the factors that affects overall performance of PSSMs in a PSI-BLAST search, the algorithm used to construct the seed alignment upon which the PSSM is based. We compare PSSMs based on alignments constructed by global sequence similarity (ClustalW and ClustalW-pairwise), local sequence similarity (BLAST), and local structure similarity (VAST). To assess performance with respect to identification of conserved functional or structural sites, we examine the accuracy of the three-dimensional molecular models predicted by PSSM-sequence alignments. Using the known structures of those sequences as the standard of truth, we find that model accuracy varies with the algorithm used for seed alignment construction in the pattern local-structure (VAST) > local-sequence (BLAST) > global-sequence (ClustalW). Using structural similarity of query and database proteins as the standard of truth, we find that PSSM recognition sensitivity depends primarily on the diversity of the sequences included in the alignment, with an optimum around 30-50% average pairwise identity. We discuss these observations, and suggest a strategy for constructing seed alignments that optimize PSSM-sequence alignment accuracy and recognition sensitivity.     

Multiple Model Approach: Exploring the Limits of Comparative Modeling

One of the biggest problems in modeling distantly related proteins is the quality of the target-template alignment. This problem often results in low quality models that do not utilize all the information available in the template structure. The divergence of alignments at a low sequence identity level, which is a hindrance in most modeling attempts, is used here as a basis for a new technique of Multiple Model Approach (MMA). Alternative alignments prepared here using different mutation matrices and gap penalties, combined with automated model building, are used to create a set of models that explore a range of possible conformations for the target protein. Models are evaluated using different techniques to identify the best model. In the set of examples studied here, the correct target structure is known, which allows the evaluation of various alignment and evaluation strategies. For a randomly selected group of distantly homologous protein pairs representing all structural classes and various fold types, it is shown that a threading score based on simplified statistical potentials of mean force can identify the best models and, consequently, the most reliable alignment. In cases where the difference between target and template structures is significant, the threading score shows clearly that all models are wrong, therefore disqualifying the template.