The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
pyDock: Electrostatics and desolvation for effective scoring of rigid‐body protein–protein docking
Open accessAbstract
The accurate scoring of rigid‐body docking orientations represents one of the major difficulties in protein–protein docking prediction. Other challenges are the development of faster and more efficient sampling methods and the introduction of receptor and ligand flexibility during simulations. Overall, good discrimination of near‐native docking poses from the very early stages of rigid‐body protein docking is essential step before applying more costly interface refinement to the correct docking solutions. Here we explore a simple approach to scoring of rigid‐body docking poses, which has been implemented in a program called pyDock. The scheme is based on Coulombic electrostatics with distance dependent dielectric constant, and implicit desolvation energy with atomic solvation parameters previously adjusted for rigid‐body protein–protein docking. This scoring function is not highly dependent on specific geometry of the docking poses and therefore can be used in rigid‐body docking sets generated by a variety of methods. We have tested the procedure in a large benchmark set of 80 unbound docking cases. The method is able to detect a near‐native solution from 12,000 docking poses and place it within the 100 lowest‐energy docking solutions in 56% of the cases, in a completely unrestricted manner and without any other additional information. More specifically, a near‐native solution will lie within the top 20 solutions in 37% of the cases. The simplicity of the approach allows for a better understanding of the physical principles behind protein–protein association, and provides a fast tool for the evaluation of large sets of rigid‐body docking poses in search of the near‐native orientation. 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
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
Cited by
Vreven, T., Moal, I. H., Vangone, A., Pierce, B. G., Kastritis, P. L., Torchala, M., Chaleil, R., Jiménez-García, B., Bates, P. A., Fernandez-Recio, J., et al. (2015) · Journal of Molecular Biology · doi:10.1016/j.jmb.2015.07.016 · Cited by 424
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
Benchmarking 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
Integrating diverse data for structure determination of macromolecular assemblies
Alber, F., Förster, F., Korkin, D., Topf, M., & Sali, A. (2008) · Annual Review of Biochemistry · doi:10.1146/annurev.biochem.77.060407.135530 · Cited by 206
Metadata
- Authors
- Cheng, T. M., Blundell, T. L., & Fernandez‐Recio, J.
- Venue
- Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-04-19
- Volume
- 68
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 503-515
- ISSN
- 0887-3585 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0134
- OpenAlex
- W2160868144
- Cited by
- 342
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 5.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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.