The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Assessment of blind predictions of protein–protein interactions: Current status of docking methods
Abstract
The current status of docking procedures for predicting protein–protein interactions starting from their three‐dimensional structure is assessed from a first major evaluation of blind predictions. This evaluation was performed as part of a communitywide experiment on Critical Assessment of PRedicted Interactions (CAPRI). Seven newly determined structures of protein–protein complexes were available as targets for this experiment. These were the complexes between a kinase and its protein substrate, between a T‐cell receptor β‐chain and a superantigen, and five antigen‐antibody complexes. For each target, the predictors were given the experimental structures of the free components, or of one free and one bound component in a random orientation. The structure of the complex was revealed only at the time of the evaluation. A total of 465 predictions submitted by 19 groups were evaluated. These groups used a wide range of algorithms and scoring functions, some of which were completely novel. The quality of the predicted interactions was evaluated by comparing residue–residue contacts and interface residues to those in the X‐ray structures and by analyzing the fit of the ligand molecules (the smaller of the two proteins in the complex) or of interface residues only, in the predicted versus target complexes. A total of 14 groups produced predictions, ranking from acceptable to highly accurate for five of the seven targets. The use of available biochemical and biological information, and in one instance structural information, played a key role in achieving this result. It was essential for identifying the native binding modes for the five correctly predicted targets, including the kinase‐substrate complex where the enzyme changes conformation on association. But it was also the cause for missing the correct solution for the two remaining unpredicted targets, which involve unexpected antigen‐antibody binding modes. Overall, this analysis reveals genuine progress in docking procedures but also illustrates the remaining serious limitations and points out the need for better scoring functions and more effective ways for handling conformational flexibility. Proteins 2003;52:51–67. © 2003 Wiley‐Liss, 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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
A comprehensive analysis of protein–protein interactions in Saccharomyces cerevisiae
Uetz, P., Giot, L., Cagney, G., Mansfield, T. A., Judson, R. S., Knight, J. R., Lockshon, D., Narayan, V., Srinivasan, M., Pochart, P., et al. (2000) · Nature · doi:10.1038/35001009 · Cited by 4,706
Principles of protein-protein interactions
Jones, S., & Thornton, J. M. (1996) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.93.1.13 · Cited by 2,684
Principles of docking: An overview of search algorithms and a guide to scoring functions
Halperin, I., Ma, B., Wolfson, H., & Nussinov, R. (2002) · Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.10115 · Cited by 1,294
Cited by
PIPER: An FFT‐based protein docking program with pairwise potentials
Kozakov, D., Brenke, R., Comeau, S. R., & Vajda, S. (2006) · Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.21117 · Cited by 865
ClusPro: an automated docking and discrimination method for the prediction of protein complexes
Comeau, S. R., Gatchell, D. W., Vajda, S., & Camacho, C. J. (2004) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btg371 · Cited by 855
CAPRI: A Critical Assessment of PRedicted Interactions
Janin, J., Henrick, K., Moult, J., Eyck, L. T., Sternberg, M. J. E., Vajda, S., Vakser, I., & Wodak, S. J. (2003) · Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.10381 · Cited by 703
Self-citationHexServer: an FFT-based protein docking server powered by graphics processors
Macindoe, G., Mavridis, L., Venkatraman, V., Devignes, M.-D., & Ritchie, D. W. (2010) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkq311 · Cited by 668
Interactome3D: adding structural details to protein networks
Mosca, R., Céol, A., & Aloy, P. (2013) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/nmeth.2289 · Cited by 479
Metadata
- Authors
- Méndez, R., Leplae, R., De Maria, L., & Wodak, S. J.
- Venue
- Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2003-05-13
- Volume
- 52
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 51-67
- ISSN
- 0887-3585 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0134
- OpenAlex
- W2048643046
- Cited by
- 418
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 7.94
- 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: Assessment of blind predictions of protein–protein interactions: Current status of docking methods. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/prot.10393
- The paper
- Méndez, R., Leplae, R., De Maria, L., & Wodak, S. J. (2003). Assessment of blind predictions of protein–protein interactions: Current status of docking methods. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics. https://doi.org/10.1002/prot.10393
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.