The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Protein–protein docking benchmark version 4.0
Open accessAbstract
We updated our protein–protein docking benchmark to include complexes that became available since our previous release. As before, we only considered high‐resolution complex structures that are nonredundant at the family–family pair level, for which the X‐ray or NMR unbound structures of the constituent proteins are also available. Benchmark 4.0 adds 52 new complexes to the 124 cases of Benchmark 3.0, representing an increase of 42%. Thus, benchmark 4.0 provides 176 unbound–unbound cases that can be used for protein–protein docking method development and assessment. Seventeen of the newly added cases are enzyme‐inhibitor complexes, and we found no new antigen‐antibody complexes. Classifying the new cases according to expected difficulty for protein–protein docking algorithms gives 33 rigid body cases, 11 cases of medium difficulty, and 8 cases that are difficult. Benchmark 4.0 listings and processed structure files are publicly accessible at http://zlab.umassmed.edu/benchmark/ Proteins 2010. © 2010 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
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 · cited 2×
“49 2599 1OC0_A:B E 1B3K_A Plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 2JQ8_A(4) Vitronectin Somatomedin B domain 1 1312 1OYV_A:I E 1SCD_A Subtilisin Carlsberg 1PJU_A Two-headed tomato inhibitor-II 0.”
BackgroundSelf-citationCAPRI: 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 Rosetta All-Atom Energy Function for Macromolecular Modeling and Design
Alford, R. F., Leaver-Fay, A., Jeliazkov, J. R., O’Meara, M. J., DiMaio, F. P., Park, H., Shapovalov, M. V., Renfrew, P. D., Mulligan, V. K., Kappel, K., et al. (2017) · Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation · doi:10.1021/acs.jctc.7b00125 · Cited by 1,532
Small-Molecule Inhibitors of Protein-Protein Interactions: Progressing toward the Reality
Arkin, M. R., Tang, Y., & Wells, J. A. (2014) · Chemistry & Biology · doi:10.1016/j.chembiol.2014.09.001 · Cited by 1,065
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
Self-citationPredicting 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
Protein-Protein Docking: From Interaction to Interactome
Vakser, I. A. (2014) · Biophysical Journal · doi:10.1016/j.bpj.2014.08.033 · Cited by 318
Metadata
- Authors
- Hwang, H., Vreven, T., Janin, J., & Weng, Z.
- Venue
- Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-07-23
- Volume
- 78
- Issue
- 15
- Pages
- 3111-3114
- ISSN
- 0887-3585 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0134
- OpenAlex
- W2915344963
- Cited by
- 476
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 16.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Protein–protein docking benchmark version 4.0. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/prot.22830
- The paper
- Hwang, H., Vreven, T., Janin, J., & Weng, Z. (2010). Protein–protein docking benchmark version 4.0. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics. https://doi.org/10.1002/prot.22830
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.
