Assessing protein homology models with docking reproducibility
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Results of the recent Critical Assessment of Protein Structure (CASP) competitions demonstrate that protein backbones can be predicted with very high accuracy. In particular, the artificial intelligence methods of AlphaFold 2 from DeepMind were able to produce structures that were similar enough to experimental structures that many described the problem of protein prediction solved. However, for such structures to be used for drug docking studies requires precision in the placement of side chain atoms as well. Here we built a library of 1334 small molecules and examined how reproducibly they bound to the same site on a protein using QuickVina-W, a branch of the program Autodock that is optimized for blind searches. We discovered that the higher the backbone quality of the homology model the greater the similarity between the small molecule docking to the experimental and modeled structures. Furthermore, we found that specific subsets of this library were particularly useful for identifying small differences between the best of the best modeled structures. Specifically, when the number of rotatable bonds in the small molecule increased, differences in binding sites became more apparent.
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
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.
Cites
Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold
Jumper, J., Evans, R., Pritzel, A., Green, T., Figurnov, M., Ronneberger, O., Tunyasuvunakool, K., Bates, R., Žídek, A., Potapenko, A., et al. (2021) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03819-2 · Cited by 43,764 · see citing works
Highly accurate protein structure prediction for the human proteome
Tunyasuvunakool, K., Adler, J., Wu, Z., Green, T., Zielinski, M., Žídek, A., Bridgland, A., Cowie, A., Meyer, C., Laydon, A., et al. (2021) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03828-1 · Cited by 3,025 · see citing works
Dill, K. A., Ozkan, S. B., Shell, M. S., & Weikl, T. R. (2008) · Annual Review of Biophysics · doi:10.1146/annurev.biophys.37.092707.153558 · Cited by 1,163 · see citing works
Current structure predictors are not learning the physics of protein folding
Outeiral, C., Nissley, D. A., & Deane, C. M. (2022) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btab881 · Cited by 82 · see citing works
Crystallographic molecular replacement using an in silico‐generated search model of SARS‐CoV‐2 ORF8
Flower, T. G., & Hurley, J. H. (2021) · Protein Science · doi:10.1002/pro.4050 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
Assessing the binding properties of <scp>CASP14</scp> targets and models
Egbert, M., Ghani, U., Ashizawa, R., Kotelnikov, S., Nguyen, T., Desta, I., Hashemi, N., Padhorny, D., Kozakov, D., & Vajda, S. (2021) · Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.26209 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Plonski, A. P., & Reed, S. M.
- Affiliations
- University of Colorado Denver (US)
- Corresponding author
- Reed, Scott M.
- Venue
- Journal of Molecular Graphics and Modelling
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2023-06
- Volume
- 121
- Pages
- 108430
- ISSN
- 1093-3263 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4320019092
- Cited by
- 9
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 1
- FWCI
- 1.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
- www.elsevier.com/legal/tdmrep-license (tdm)
- www.elsevier.com/open-access/userlicense/1.0/ (am, 630 d)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-017 (stm-asf)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-037 (stm-asf)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-012 (stm-asf)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-029 (stm-asf)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-004 (stm-asf)
- Locations
- Journal of Molecular Graphics and Modelling (acceptedVersion)
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of General Medical Sciences (T34GM096958)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Structure and Dynamics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Receptor Mechanisms and Signaling
- Keywords
- small molecule docking, AutoDock, blind docking, rotatable bonds, binding site comparison, AlphaFold2, CASP, protein structure prediction
- MeSH terms
- Artificial Intelligence, Binding Sites, Ligands, Protein Binding, Protein Conformation, Proteins, Reproducibility of Results
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