The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Assessment of CAPRI predictions in rounds 3–5 shows progress in docking procedures
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.
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
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
PatchDock and SymmDock: servers for rigid and symmetric docking
Schneidman-Duhovny, D., Inbar, Y., Nussinov, R., & Wolfson, H. J. (2005) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gki481 · Cited by 3,018
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-citation
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
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
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
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
- 4
- 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
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.