Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,208

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Shape complementarity at protein–protein interfaces

Norel, Raquel, Lin, Shuo L., Wolfson, Haim J., Nussinov, Ruth·1994·Biopolymers

Abstract

A matching algorithm using surface complementarity between receptor and ligand protein molecules is outlined. The molecular surfaces are represented by “critical points,” describing holes and knobs. Holes (maxima of a shape function) are matched with knobs (minima). This simple and appealing surface representation has been previously described by Connolly [(1986) Biopolymers, Vol. 25, pp. 1229–1247]. However, attempts to implement this description in a docking scheme have been unsuccessful (e.g., Connolly, ibid.). In order to decrease the combinatorial complexity, and to make the execution time affordable, four critical hole/knob point matches were sought. This approach failed since some bound interfaces are relatively flat and do not possess four critical point matches. On the other hand, matchings of fewer critical points require a very time‐consuming, full conformational (grid) space search [Wang, (1991) Journal of Computational Chemistry, Vol. 12, pp. 746–750]. Here we show that despite the initial failure of this approach, with a simple and straightforward modification in the matching algorithm, this surface representation works well. Out of the 16 protein‐protein complexes we have tried, 15 were successfully docked, including two immunoglobulins. The entire molecular surfaces were considered, with absolutely no additional information regarding the binding sites. The whole process is completely automated, with no manual intervention, either in the input atomic coordinate data, or in the matching. We have been able to reach this level of performance with the hole/knob surface description by using pairs of critical points along with their surface normals in the calculation of the transformation matrix. The success of this approach suggests that future docking methods should use geometric docking as the first screening filter. As a geometrically based docking methodology predicts correct, along with incorrect, receptor‐ligand bound conformations, all solutions need to undergo energy screening to differentiate between them. © 1994 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/bip.360340711

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 17 references

Cited by

See all 1,208

Metadata

Authors
Norel, R., Lin, S. L., Wolfson, H. J., & Nussinov, R.
Venue
Biopolymers
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1994-07
Volume
34
Issue
7
Pages
933-940
ISSN
  • 0006-3525 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0282
OpenAlex
W2056034415
Cited by
1,208
References
17
FWCI
5.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Shape complementarity at protein–protein interfaces. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/bip.360340711
The paper
Norel, R., Lin, S. L., Wolfson, H. J., & Nussinov, R. (1994). Shape complementarity at protein–protein interfaces. Biopolymers. https://doi.org/10.1002/bip.360340711

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.