Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 282

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

Chen, Huiling, Zhou, Huan‐Xiang·2005·Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/prot.20514

Cites

6 of 6 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 282

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

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.