Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 340

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Assessment of CAPRI predictions in rounds 3–5 shows progress in docking procedures

Méndez, Raúl, Leplae, Raphaël, Lensink, Marc F., Wodak, Shoshana J.·2005·Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics

Abstract

The current status of docking procedures for predicting protein–protein interactions starting from their three‐dimensional (3D) structure is reassessed by evaluating blind predictions, performed during 2003–2004 as part of Rounds 3–5 of the community‐wide experiment on Critical Assessment of PRedicted Interactions (CAPRI). Ten newly determined structures of protein–protein complexes were used as targets for these rounds. They comprised 2 enzyme–inhibitor complexes, 2 antigen–antibody complexes, 2 complexes involved in cellular signaling, 2 homo‐oligomers, and a complex between 2 components of the bacterial cellulosome. For most targets, the predictors were given the experimental structures of 1 unbound and 1 bound component, with the latter in a random orientation. For some, the structure of the free component was derived from that of a related protein, requiring the use of homology modeling. In some of the targets, significant differences in conformation were displayed between the bound and unbound components, representing a major challenge for the docking procedures. For 1 target, predictions could not go to completion. In total, 1866 predictions submitted by 30 groups were evaluated. Over one‐third of these groups applied completely novel docking algorithms and scoring functions, with several of them specifically addressing the challenge of dealing with side‐chain and backbone flexibility. The quality of the predicted interactions was evaluated by comparison to the experimental structures of the targets, made available for the evaluation, using the well‐agreed‐upon criteria used previously. Twenty‐four groups, which for the first time included an automatic Web server, produced predictions ranking from acceptable to highly accurate for all targets, including those where the structures of the bound and unbound forms differed substantially. These results and a brief survey of the methods used by participants of CAPRI Rounds 3–5 suggest that genuine progress in the performance of docking methods is being achieved, with CAPRI acting as the catalyst. Proteins 2005;60:150–169. © 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.20551

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

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 340

Metadata

Authors
Méndez, R., Leplae, R., Lensink, M. F., & Wodak, S. J.
Venue
Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-06-24
Volume
60
Issue
2
Pages
150-169
ISSN
  • 0887-3585 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0134
OpenAlex
W2129414710
Cited by
340
References
3
FWCI
12.56
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 CAPRI predictions in rounds 3–5 shows progress in docking procedures. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/prot.20551
The paper
Méndez, R., Leplae, R., Lensink, M. F., & Wodak, S. J. (2005). Assessment of CAPRI predictions in rounds 3–5 shows progress in docking procedures. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics. https://doi.org/10.1002/prot.20551

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.