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

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Docking and scoring protein complexes: CAPRI 3rd Edition

Lensink, Marc F., Méndez, Raúl, Wodak, Shoshana J.·2007·Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics
DOI 10.1002/prot.21804
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The performance of methods for predicting protein–protein interactions at the atomic scale is assessed by evaluating blind predictions performed during 2005–2007 as part of Rounds 6–12 of the community‐wide experiment on Critical Assessment of PRedicted Interactions (CAPRI). These Rounds also included a new scoring experiment, where a larger set of models contributed by the predictors was made available to groups developing scoring functions. These groups scored the uploaded set and submitted their own best models for assessment. The structures of nine protein complexes including one homodimer were used as targets. These targets represent biologically relevant interactions involved in gene expression, signal transduction, RNA, or protein processing and membrane maintenance. For all the targets except one, predictions started from the experimentally determined structures of the free (unbound) components or from models derived by homology, making it mandatory for docking methods to model the conformational changes that often accompany association. In total, 63 groups and eight automatic servers, a substantial increase from previous years, submitted docking predictions, of which 1994 were evaluated here. Fifteen groups submitted 305 models for five targets in the scoring experiment. Assessment of the predictions reveals that 31 different groups produced models of acceptable and medium accuracy‐but only one high accuracy submission‐for all the targets, except the homodimer. In the latter, none of the docking procedures reproduced the large conformational adjustment required for correct assembly, underscoring yet again that handling protein flexibility remains a major challenge. In the scoring experiment, a large fraction of the groups attained the set goal of singling out the correct association modes from incorrect solutions in the limited ensembles of contributed models. But in general they seemed unable to identify the best models, indicating that current scoring methods are probably not sensitive enough. With the increased focus on protein assemblies, in particular by structural genomics efforts, the growing community of CAPRI predictors is engaged more actively than ever in the development of better scoring functions and means of modeling conformational flexibility, which hold promise for much progress in the future. 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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/prot.21804

Cites

24 of 24 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 24 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Lensink, M. F., Méndez, R., & Wodak, S. J.
Venue
Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-10-31
Volume
69
Issue
4
Pages
704-718
ISSN
  • 0887-3585 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0134
DOI
10.1002/prot.21804
OpenAlex
W2018410079
Cited by
340
References
24
FWCI
10.06
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.