The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
ZRANK: Reranking protein docking predictions with an optimized energy function
Abstract
Protein–protein docking requires fast and effective methods to quickly discriminate correct from incorrect predictions generated by initial‐stage docking. We have developed and tested a scoring function that utilizes detailed electrostatics, van der Waals, and desolvation to rescore initial‐stage docking predictions. Weights for the scoring terms were optimized for a set of test cases, and this optimized function was then tested on an independent set of nonredundant cases. This program, named ZRANK, is shown to significantly improve the success rate over the initial ZDOCK rankings across a large benchmark. The amount of test cases with No. 1 ranked hits increased from 2 to 11 and from 6 to 12 when predictions from two ZDOCK versions were considered. ZRANK can be applied either as a refinement protocol in itself or as a preprocessing stage to enrich the well‐ranked hits prior to further refinement. Proteins 2007. © 2007 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
Berman, H. M. (2000) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/28.1.235 · Cited by 40,196
Numerical recipes in C: the art of scientific computing
(1993) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.30-5638 · Cited by 17,933
CHARMM: A program for macromolecular energy, minimization, and dynamics calculations
Brooks, B. R., Bruccoleri, R. E., Olafson, B. D., States, D. J., Swaminathan, S., & Karplus, M. (1983) · Journal of Computational Chemistry · doi:10.1002/jcc.540040211 · Cited by 14,944
Numerical Recipes in C: The Art of Scientific Computing.
Birchenhall, C., Press, W. H., Teukolsky, S. A., Vetterling, W. T., & Flannery, B. P. (1994) · The Economic Journal · doi:10.2307/2234664 · Cited by 4,355
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
Crimins, F. (2003) · Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology · doi:10.1007/s12010-003-0001-6 · Cited by 2,000
Abagyan, R., Totrov, M., & Kuznetsov, D. (1994) · Journal of Computational Chemistry · doi:10.1002/jcc.540150503 · Cited by 1,699
ZDOCK: An initial‐stage protein‐docking algorithm
Chen, R., Li, L., & Weng, Z. (2003) · Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.10389 · Cited by 1,393
Self-citationSimulation of activation free energies in molecular systems
Neria, E., Fischer, S., & Karplus, M. (1996) · The Journal of Chemical Physics · doi:10.1063/1.472061 · Cited by 1,322
Principles of docking: An overview of search algorithms and a guide to scoring functions
Halperin, I., Ma, B., Wolfson, H., & Nussinov, R. (2002) · Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.10115 · Cited by 1,294
Cited by
Ihle, N. T., Byers, L. A., Kim, E. S., Saintigny, P., Lee, J. J., Blumenschein, G. R., Tsao, A., Liu, S., Larsen, J. E., Wang, J., et al. (2012) · JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/djr523 · Cited by 532
Predicting Protein–Protein Interactions from the Molecular to the Proteome Level
Keskin, O., Tuncbag, N., & Gursoy, A. (2016) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.5b00683 · Cited by 369
Benchmarking AlphaFold for protein complex modeling reveals accuracy determinants
Yin, R., Feng, B. Y., Varshney, A., & Pierce, B. G. (2022) · Protein Science · doi:10.1002/pro.4379 · Cited by 335
Self-citationBenchmarking AlphaFold for protein complex modeling reveals accuracy determinants
Yin, R., Feng, B. Y., Varshney, A., & Pierce, B. G. (2021) · doi:10.1101/2021.10.23.465575 · Cited by 335
Self-citationCPORT: 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
ModBase, a database of annotated comparative protein structure models and associated resources
Pieper, U., Webb, B. M., Dong, G. Q., Schneidman-Duhovny, D., Fan, H., Kim, S. J., Khuri, N., Spill, Y. G., Weinkam, P., Hammel, M., et al. (2014) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkt1144 · Cited by 322
HSP70 Multi-Functionality in Cancer
Albakova, Z., Armeev, G. A., Kanevskiy, L. M., Kovalenko, E. I., & Sapozhnikov, A. M. (2020) · Cells · doi:10.3390/cells9030587 · Cited by 265
Protein–protein docking benchmark version 3.0
Hwang, H., Pierce, B., Mintseris, J., Janin, J., & Weng, Z. (2008) · Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.22106 · Cited by 255
Self-citationComputational approaches to therapeutic antibody design: established methods and emerging trends
Norman, R. A., Ambrosetti, F., Bonvin, A. M. J. J., Colwell, L. J., Kelm, S., Kumar, S., & Krawczyk, K. (2020) · Briefings in Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bib/bbz095 · Cited by 219
“antibody-specific DockSorter [110] and general protein ZRANK [171], FireDock [172], SIPPER[173]) to discriminate models that are closer to the native conformation.”
BackgroundHot-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
Amyloid-β Peptide Nitrotyrosination Stabilizes Oligomers and Enhances NMDAR-Mediated Toxicity
Guivernau, B., Bonet, J., Valls-Comamala, V., Bosch-Morató, M., Godoy, J. A., Inestrosa, N. C., Perálvarez-Marín, A., Fernández-Busquets, X., Andreu, D., Oliva, B., et al. (2016) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.1081-16.2016 · Cited by 69
Eron, S. J., Huang, H., Agafonov, R. V., Fitzgerald, M. E., Patel, J., Michael, R. E., Lee, T. D., Hart, A. A., Shaulsky, J., Nasveschuk, C. G., et al. (2021) · ACS Chemical Biology · doi:10.1021/acschembio.1c00376 · Cited by 57
Advancements in Nanobody Epitope Prediction: A Comparative Study of AlphaFold2Multimer vs AlphaFold3
Eshak, F., & Goupil-Lamy, A. (2025) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/acs.jcim.4c01877 · Cited by 34
Contact Potential for Structure Prediction of Proteins and Protein Complexes from Potts Model
Anishchenko, I., Kundrotas, P. J., & Vakser, I. A. (2018) · Biophysical Journal · doi:10.1016/j.bpj.2018.07.035 · Cited by 29
Refinement of protein-protein complexes in contact map space with metadynamics simulations
Pfeiffenberger, E., & Bates, P. A. (2019) · Proteins Structure Function and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.25612 · Cited by 15
Distance‐based reconstruction of protein quaternary structures from inter‐chain contacts
Soltanikazemi, E., Quadir, F., Roy, R. S., Guo, Z., & Cheng, J. (2022) · Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.26269 · Cited by 15
Zheng, F., Jiang, X., Wen, Y., Yang, Y., & Li, M. (2024) · Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal · doi:10.1016/j.csbj.2023.12.018 · Cited by 14
A fully automated benchmarking suite to compare macromolecular complexes
Studer, G., Robin, X., Bienert, S., Durairaj, J., Škrinjar, P., Tauriello, G., Waterhouse, A. M., & Schwede, T. (2026) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/s41592-025-02973-z · Cited by 10
“This usage is distinct from scores that may reflect energy-based evaluations, such as those generated by tools such as ZRank 31 , which are used during modeling or docking but are not direct measures of structural similarity.”
Tortosa, V., Bonaccorsi di Patti, M. C., Brandi, V., Musci, G., & Polticelli, F. (2017) · Bio-Algorithms and Med-Systems · doi:10.1515/bams-2017-0029 · Cited by 9
ProInterVal: Validation of Protein–Protein Interfaces through Learned Interface Representations
Ovek, D., Keskin, O., & Gursoy, A. (2024) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/acs.jcim.3c01788 · Cited by 8
(2024) · doi:10.1111/pcmr.13196 · Cited by 3
Metadata
- Authors
- Pierce, B., & Weng, Z.
- Venue
- Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-05
- Volume
- 67
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1078-1086
- ISSN
- 0887-3585 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0134
- OpenAlex
- W2129454543
- Cited by
- 444
- References
- 31
- FWCI
- 5.75
- 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.
