Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 418

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

Méndez, Raúl, Leplae, Raphaël, De Maria, Leonardo, Wodak, Shoshana J.·2003·Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/prot.10393

Cites

3 of 3 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

Cited by

See all 418

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

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.