The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 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
A comprehensive two-hybrid analysis to explore the yeast protein interactome
Ito, T., Chiba, T., Ozawa, R., Yoshida, M., Hattori, M., & Sakaki, Y. (2001) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.061034498 · Cited by 3,566
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
The ClusPro web server for protein–protein docking
Kozakov, D., Hall, D. R., Xia, B., Porter, K. A., Padhorny, D., Yueh, C., Beglov, D., & Vajda, S. (2017) · Nature Protocols · doi:10.1038/nprot.2016.169 · Cited by 3,310
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
Variability in docking success rates due to dataset preparation.
Corbeil, C. R., Williams, C. I., & Labute, P. (2012) · Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design · doi:10.1007/s10822-012-9570-1 · Cited by 469
DockQ: A Quality Measure for Protein-Protein Docking Models
Basu, S., & Wallner, B. (2016) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0161879 · Cited by 460
Vreven, T., Moal, I. H., Vangone, A., Pierce, B. G., Kastritis, P. L., Torchala, M., Chaleil, R., Jiménez-García, B., Bates, P. A., Fernandez-Recio, J., et al. (2015) · Journal of Molecular Biology · doi:10.1016/j.jmb.2015.07.016 · Cited by 424
Protein–Protein Docking with Backbone Flexibility
Wang, C., Bradley, P., & Baker, D. (2007) · Journal of Molecular Biology · doi:10.1016/j.jmb.2007.07.050 · Cited by 414
Protein–protein interaction and quaternary structure
Janin, J., Bahadur, R. P., & Chakrabarti, P. (2008) · Quarterly Reviews of Biophysics · doi:10.1017/s0033583508004708 · Cited by 398
Molecular docking as a popular tool in drug design, an in silico travel
de Ruyck, J., Brysbaert, G., Blossey, R., & Lensink, M. (2016) · Advances and Applications in Bioinformatics and Chemistry · doi:10.2147/aabc.s105289 · Cited by 346
Docking and scoring protein complexes: CAPRI 3rd Edition
Lensink, M. F., Méndez, R., & Wodak, S. J. (2007) · Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.21804 · Cited by 340
Self-citationCPORT: A Consensus Interface Predictor and Its Performance in Prediction-Driven Docking with HADDOCK
de Vries, S. J., & Bonvin, A. M. J. J. (2011) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0017695 · Cited by 324
Benchmarking and Analysis of Protein Docking Performance in Rosetta v3.2
Chaudhury, S., Berrondo, M., Weitzner, B. D., Muthu, P., Bergman, H., & Gray, J. J. (2011) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0022477 · Cited by 310
Protein–protein docking benchmark 2.0: An update
Mintseris, J., Wiehe, K., Pierce, B., Anderson, R., Chen, R., Janin, J., & Weng, Z. (2005) · Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.20560 · Cited by 278
Docking, scoring, and affinity prediction in CAPRI
Lensink, M. F., & Wodak, S. J. (2013) · Proteins Structure Function and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.24428 · Cited by 249
Self-citationDocking and scoring protein interactions: CAPRI 2009
Lensink, M. F., & Wodak, S. J. (2010) · Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.22818 · Cited by 226
Self-citationModeling protein–protein and protein–peptide complexes: CAPRI 6th edition
Lensink, M. F., Velankar, S., & Wodak, S. J. (2017) · Proteins Structure Function and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.25215 · Cited by 222
Efficient flexible backbone protein-protein docking for challenging targets
Marze, N. A., Roy Burman, S. S., Sheffler, W., & Gray, J. J. (2018) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/bty355 · Cited by 173
Protein-Protein Complex Structure Predictions by Multimeric Threading and Template Recombination
Mukherjee, S., & Zhang, Y. (2011) · Structure · doi:10.1016/j.str.2011.04.006 · Cited by 174
Parapred: antibody paratope prediction using convolutional and recurrent neural networks
Liberis, E., Veličković, P., Sormanni, P., Vendruscolo, M., & Liò, P. (2018) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/bty305 · Cited by 165
DeepRank: a deep learning framework for data mining 3D protein-protein interfaces
Renaud, N., Geng, C., Georgievska, S., Ambrosetti, F., Ridder, L., Marzella, D. F., Réau, M. F., Bonvin, A. M. J. J., & Xue, L. C. (2021) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-021-27396-0 · Cited by 125
Lapidoth, G. D., Baran, D., Pszolla, G. M., Norn, C., Alon, A., Tyka, M. D., & Fleishman, S. J. (2015) · Proteins Structure Function and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.24779 · Cited by 107
Modelling protein complexes with crosslinking mass spectrometry and deep learning
(2024) · doi:10.1038/s41467-024-51771-2 · Cited by 94
Protein complex prediction using Rosetta, AlphaFold, and mass spectrometry covalent labeling
Drake, Z. C., Seffernick, J. T., & Lindert, S. (2022) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-022-35593-8 · Cited by 85
M-TASSER: An Algorithm for Protein Quaternary Structure Prediction
Chen, H., & Skolnick, J. (2008) · Biophysical Journal · doi:10.1529/biophysj.107.114280 · Cited by 68
Zhang, W., Roy Burman, S. S., Chen, J., Donovan, K. A., Cao, Y., Shu, C., Zhang, B., Zeng, Z., Gu, S., Zhang, Y., et al. (2022) · Genomics, Proteomics & Bioinformatics · doi:10.1016/j.gpb.2022.11.008 · Cited by 51
New benchmark metrics for protein‐protein docking methods
Gao, M., & Skolnick, J. (2011) · Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.22987 · Cited by 42
Giulini, M., Schneider, C., Cutting, D., Desai, N., Deane, C. M., & Bonvin, A. M. J. J. (2024) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btae583 · Cited by 41
Kurkcuoglu, Z., & Bonvin, A. M. J. J. (2020) · Proteins Structure Function and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.25802 · Cited by 37
Assessing the Applicability of Template-Based Protein Docking in the Twilight Zone
Negroni, J., Mosca, R., & Aloy, P. (2014) · Structure · doi:10.1016/j.str.2014.07.009 · Cited by 35
Contact Potential for Structure Prediction of Proteins and Protein Complexes from Potts Model
Anishchenko, I., Kundrotas, P. J., & Vakser, I. A. (2018) · Biophysical Journal · doi:10.1016/j.bpj.2018.07.035 · Cited by 29
Corrada, D., Denison, M. S., & Bonati, L. (2017) · Molecular BioSystems · doi:10.1039/c7mb00005g · Cited by 24
Modelling protein complexes with crosslinking mass spectrometry and deep learning
Stahl, K., Demann, L., Bremenkamp, R., Warneke, R., Hormes, B., Stülke, J., Brock, O., & Rappsilber, J. (2023) · doi:10.1101/2023.06.07.544059 · Cited by 20
Flexible backbone assembly and refinement of symmetrical homomeric complexes
Roy Burman, S. S., Yovanno, R. A., & Gray, J. J. (2019) · Structure · doi:10.1016/j.str.2019.03.014 · Cited by 18
Dauzhenka, T., Kundrotas, P. J., & Vakser, I. A. (2018) · Journal of Computational Chemistry · doi:10.1002/jcc.25381 · Cited by 17
Induced fit with replica exchange improves protein complex structure prediction
Harmalkar, A., Mahajan, S. P., & Gray, J. J. (2022) · PLOS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010124 · Cited by 16
Refinement of protein-protein complexes in contact map space with metadynamics simulations
Pfeiffenberger, E., & Bates, P. A. (2019) · Proteins Structure Function and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.25612 · Cited by 15
A fully automated benchmarking suite to compare macromolecular complexes
Studer, G., Robin, X., Bienert, S., Durairaj, J., Škrinjar, P., Tauriello, G., Waterhouse, A. M., & Schwede, T. (2026) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/s41592-025-02973-z · Cited by 10
“37,73.”
Dixon, T., MacPherson, D., Mostofian, B., Dauzhenka, T., Lotz, S., McGee, D., Shechter, S., Shrestha, U. R., Wiewiora, R., McDargh, Z. A., et al. (2021) · doi:10.1101/2021.09.26.461830 · Cited by 7
EuDockScore: Euclidean graph neural networks for scoring protein–protein interfaces
McFee, M., Kim, J., & Kim, P. M. (2024) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btae636 · Cited by 3
Information-driven modelling of antibody–antigen complexes
Ambrosetti, F., Jiménez-García, B., Roel-Touris, J., & Bonvin, A. M. J. J. (2019) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3362436 · Cited by 2
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
- 4
- 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
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.
