Cited by 249Protein Structure and DynamicsComputational Drug Discovery MethodsEnzyme Structure and Function

Docking, scoring, and affinity prediction in CAPRI

Lensink, Marc F., Wodak, Shoshana J.·2013·Proteins Structure Function and Bioinformatics

Abstract

We present the fifth evaluation of docking and related scoring methods used in the community-wide experiment on the Critical Assessment of Predicted Interactions (CAPRI). The evaluation examined predictions submitted for a total of 15 targets in eight CAPRI rounds held during the years 2010-2012. The targets represented one the most diverse set tackled by the CAPRI community so far. They included only 10 "classical" docking and scoring problems. In one of the classical targets, the new challenge was to predict the position of water molecules in the protein-protein interface. The remaining five targets represented other new challenges that involved estimating the relative binding affinity and the effect of point mutations on the stability of designed and natural protein-protein complexes. Although the 10 classical CAPRI targets included two difficult multicomponent systems, and a protein-oligosaccharide complex with which CAPRI participants had little experience, this evaluation indicates that the performance of docking and scoring methods has remained quite robust. More remarkably, we find that automatic docking servers exhibit a significantly improved performance, with some servers now performing on par with predictions done by humans. The performance of CAPRI participants in the new challenges, briefly reviewed here, was mediocre overall, but some groups did relatively well and their approaches suggested ways of improving methods for designing binders and for estimating the free energies of protein assemblies, which should impact the field of protein modeling and design as a whole.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/prot.24428

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lensink, M. F., & Wodak, S. J.
Affiliations
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
Corresponding author
Lensink, Marc F.
Venue
Proteins Structure Function and Bioinformatics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-10-17
Volume
81
Issue
12
Pages
2082-2095
ISSN
  • 0887-3585 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0134
OpenAlex
W2165531467
Cited by
249
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 46 · 2015: 27 · 2014: 27 · 2013: 1
FWCI
15.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Proteins Structure Function and Bioinformatics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • French Agence Nationale de Recherche (ANR-12-BSV5-0009-01 (to M.F.L.))
  • Canada Institute of Health Research, Sickkids Foundation, Ontario Research Fund, PrioNet Network of Excellence, Canada
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Structure and Dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Enzyme Structure and Function
Keywords
protein-protein docking, docking scoring functions, binding affinity prediction, free energy calculation
MeSH terms
Humans, Ligands, Protein Binding, Protein Conformation, Proteins, Software, Water, Computational Biology, Protein Interaction Mapping, Molecular Docking Simulation

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