Cited by 10Protein Structure and DynamicsComputational Drug Discovery MethodsEnzyme Structure and Function

Assessing the binding properties of CASP14 targets and models

Open access
Egbert, Megan, Ghani, Usman, Ashizawa, Ryota, Kotelnikov, Sergei, Nguyen, Thu, Desta, Israel, Hashemi, Nasser, Padhorny, Dzmitry +2 more·2021·Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics

Abstract

An important question is how well the models submitted to CASP retain the properties of target structures. We investigate several properties related to binding. First we explore the binding of small molecules as probes, and count the number of interactions between each residue and such probes, resulting in a binding fingerprint. The similarity between two fingerprints, one for the X‐ray structure and the other for a model, is determined by calculating their correlation coefficient. The fingerprint similarity weakly correlates with global measures of accuracy, and GDT_TS higher than 80 is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the conservation of surface binding properties. The advantage of this approach is that it can be carried out without information on potential ligands and their binding sites. The latter information was available for a few targets, and we explored whether the CASP14 models can be used to predict binding sites and to dock small ligands. Finally, we tested the ability of models to reproduce protein–protein interactions by docking both the X‐ray structures and the models to their interaction partners in complexes. The analysis showed that in CASP14 the quality of individual domain models is approaching that offered by X‐ray crystallography, and hence such models can be successfully used for the identification of binding and regulatory sites, as well as for assembling obligatory protein–protein complexes. Success of ligand docking, however, often depends on fine details of the binding interface, and thus may require accounting for conformational changes by simulation methods.

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.26209

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • Analysis by the function assessors shows that simply using more accurate models of the constituent proteins will have a major impact on the effectiveness of classical docking methods.

    “First, analysis by the function assessors8 shows that simply using more accurate models of the constituent proteins will have a major impact on the effectiveness of classical docking methods.”
  • The CASP function assessors have shown that improved accuracy of structure models will improve the performance of current ligand docking methods.

    “As with protein docking, the CASP function assessors have shown that improved accuracy of structure models will improve the performance of current ligand docking methods8, with implications for screening ligand specificity across all proteins.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [21]Krissinel E, Henrick K. Protein interfaces, surfaces and assemblies service PISA at European Bioinformatics Institute. J Mol Biol. 2007; 372: 774– 797. 17681537

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Egbert, M., Ghani, U., Ashizawa, R., Kotelnikov, S., Nguyen, T., Desta, I., Hashemi, N., Padhorny, D., Kozakov, D., & Vajda, S.
Affiliations
  • Boston University (US)
  • Stony Brook University (US)
  • Department of Biomedical Engineering Boston University Boston Massachusetts USA
Corresponding author
  • Padhorny, Dzmitry
  • Kozakov, Dima
Venue
Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-08-19
Volume
89
Issue
12
Pages
1922-1939
ISSN
  • 0887-3585 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0134
OpenAlex
W3188448537
Cited by
10
References
43
Citations by year
2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4
FWCI
0.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proteins Structure Function and Bioinformatics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R21GM127952, R35GM118078, RM1135136)
  • National Science Foundation (AF 1645512, DBI 1759277)
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
CASP14, protein structure prediction, model accuracy assessment, small molecule binding, protein-ligand docking, binding site prediction, protein-protein interaction, GDT_TS, conformational change
MeSH terms
Binding Sites, Ligands, Models, Molecular, Protein Binding, Protein Conformation, Proteins, Software, Computational Biology, Protein Interaction Domains and Motifs, 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