The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Prediction of interface residues in protein–protein complexes by a consensus neural network method: Test against NMR data
Abstract
The number of structures of protein–protein complexes deposited to the Protein Data Bank is growing rapidly. These structures embed important information for predicting structures of new protein complexes. This motivated us to develop the PPISP method for predicting interface residues in protein–protein complexes. In PPISP, sequence profiles and solvent accessibility of spatially neighboring surface residues were used as input to a neural network. The network was trained on native interface residues collected from the Protein Data Bank. The prediction accuracy at the time was 70% with 47% coverage of native interface residues. Now we have extensively improved PPISP. The training set now consisted of 1156 nonhomologous protein chains. Test on a set of 100 nonhomologous protein chains showed that the prediction accuracy is now increased to 80% with 51% coverage. To solve the problem of over‐prediction and under‐prediction associated with individual neural network models, we developed a consensus method that combines predictions from multiple models with different levels of accuracy and coverage. Applied on a benchmark set of 68 proteins for protein–protein docking, the consensus approach outperformed the best individual models by 3–8 percentage points in accuracy. To demonstrate the predictive power of cons‐PPISP, eight complex‐forming proteins with interfaces characterized by NMR were tested. These proteins are nonhomologous to the training set and have a total of 144 interface residues identified by chemical shift perturbation. cons‐PPISP predicted 174 interface residues with 69% accuracy and 47% coverage and promises to complement experimental techniques in characterizing protein–protein interfaces. Proteins 2005. © 2005 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
Kabsch, W., & Sander, C. (1983) · Biopolymers · doi:10.1002/bip.360221211 · Cited by 15,320
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
HADDOCK: A Protein−Protein Docking Approach Based on Biochemical or Biophysical Information
Dominguez, C., Boelens, R., & Bonvin, A. M. J. J. (2003) · Journal of the American Chemical Society · doi:10.1021/ja026939x · Cited by 3,187
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
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
Cited by
Structure-based prediction of protein–protein interactions on a genome-wide scale
Zhang, Q. C., Petrey, D., Deng, L., Qiang, L., Shi, Y., Thu, C. A., Bisikirska, B., Lefebvre, C., Accili, D., Hunter, T., et al. (2012) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature11503 · Cited by 723
CPORT: 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
Zeng, M., Zhang, F., Wu, F.-X., Li, Y., Wang, J., & Li, M. (2020) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btz699 · Cited by 281
Protein interface conservation across structure space
Zhang, Q. C., Petrey, D., Norel, R., & Honig, B. H. (2010) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1005894107 · Cited by 156
Hot-spot analysis for drug discovery targeting protein-protein interactions
Rosell, M., & Fernández-Recio, J. (2018) · Expert Opinion on Drug Discovery · doi:10.1080/17460441.2018.1430763 · Cited by 105
Metadata
- Authors
- Chen, H., & Zhou, H.
- Venue
- Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005-08-03
- Volume
- 61
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 21-35
- ISSN
- 0887-3585 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0134
- OpenAlex
- W2136832587
- Cited by
- 282
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 4.61
- 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: Prediction of interface residues in protein–protein complexes by a consensus neural network method: Test against NMR data. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/prot.20514
- The paper
- Chen, H., & Zhou, H. (2005). Prediction of interface residues in protein–protein complexes by a consensus neural network method: Test against NMR data. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics. https://doi.org/10.1002/prot.20514
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.