The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Achieving reliability and high accuracy in automated protein docking: Cluspro, PIPER, SDU, and stability analysis in CAPRI rounds 13–19
Open accessAbstract
Our approach to protein—protein docking includes three main steps. First, we run PIPER, a rigid body docking program based on the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) correlation approach, extended to use pairwise interactions potentials. Second, the 1000 best energy conformations are clustered, and the 30 largest clusters are retained for refinement. Third, the stability of the clusters is analyzed by short Monte Carlo simulations, and the structures are refined by the medium‐range optimization method SDU. The first two steps of this approach are implemented in the ClusPro 2.0 protein–protein docking server. Despite being fully automated, the last step is computationally too expensive to be included in the server. When comparing the models obtained in CAPRI rounds 13–19 by ClusPro, by the refinement of the ClusPro predictions and by all predictor groups, we arrived at three conclusions. First, for the first time in the CAPRI history, our automated ClusPro server was able to compete with the best human predictor groups. Second, selecting the top ranked models, our current protocol reliably generates high‐quality structures of protein–protein complexes from the structures of separately crystallized proteins, even in the absence of biological information, provided that there is limited backbone conformational change. Third, despite occasional successes, homology modeling requires further improvement to achieve reliable docking results. 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
I-TASSER server for protein 3D structure prediction
Zhang, Y. (2008) · BMC Bioinformatics · doi:10.1186/1471-2105-9-40 · Cited by 5,124
Research works printed but not linked: 15
- 10.1002/prot.21117 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1529/biophysj.108.135814 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1529/biophysj.104.058768 · DOI
- 10.1002/prot.21997 · DOI
- 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000191 · DOI
- 10.1002/1097-0134(20000815)40:3<525::AID-PROT190>3.0.CO;2-F · DOI
- 10.1002/prot.10460 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1093/bioinformatics/btg371 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0134(19990515)35:3<364::AID-PROT11>3.0.CO;2-4 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1002/prot.10473 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0006-3495(03)74997-2 · DOI
- 10.1002/prot.20019 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1002/0471250953.bi0506s15 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1073/pnas.0910756107 · DOI
- 10.1002/prot.22726 · DOI
Cited by
Protein-Protein Complex Structure Predictions by Multimeric Threading and Template Recombination
Mukherjee, S., & Zhang, Y. (2011) · Structure · doi:10.1016/j.str.2011.04.006 · Cited by 174
The Rab6-regulated KIF1C kinesin motor domain contributes to Golgi organization
Lee, P. L., Ohlson, M. B., & Pfeffer, S. R. (2015) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.06029 · Cited by 65
Metadata
- Authors
- Kozakov, D., Hall, D. R., Beglov, D., Brenke, R., Comeau, S. R., Shen, Y., Li, K., Zheng, J., Vakili, P., Paschalidis, I. C., & Vajda, S.
- Venue
- Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-07-23
- Volume
- 78
- Issue
- 15
- Pages
- 3124-3130
- ISSN
- 0887-3585 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0134
- OpenAlex
- W2102312699
- Cited by
- 239
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 13.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- Funders
- National Institute for Health (GM61867, GM93147)
- National Science Foundation (MRI DBI-0116574)
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.