Cited by 6Protein Structure and DynamicsComputational Drug Discovery Methodsvaccines and immunoinformatics approaches

InterPepScore: a deep learning score for improving the FlexPepDock refinement protocol

Open access
Johansson-Åkhe, Isak, Wallner, Björn·2022·Bioinformatics

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Motivation: Interactions between peptide fragments and protein receptors are vital to cell function yet difficult to experimentally determine in structural details of. As such, many computational methods have been developed to aid in peptide–protein docking or structure prediction. One such method is Rosetta FlexPepDock which consistently refines coarse peptide–protein models into sub-Ångström precision using Monte-Carlo simulations and statistical potentials. Deep learning has recently seen increased use in protein structure prediction, with graph neural networks used for protein model quality assessment. Results: Here, we introduce a graph neural network, InterPepScore, as an additional scoring term to complement and improve the Rosetta FlexPepDock refinement protocol. InterPepScore is trained on simulation trajectories from FlexPepDock refinement starting from thousands of peptide–protein complexes generated by a wide variety of docking schemes. The addition of InterPepScore into the refinement protocol consistently improves the quality of models created, and on an independent benchmark on 109 peptide–protein complexes its inclusion results in an increase in the number of complexes for which the top-scoring model had a DockQ-score of 0.49 (Medium quality) or better from 14.8% to 26.1%. Availability and implementation: InterPepScore is available online at http://wallnerlab.org/InterPepScore. Supplementary information: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

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 · 10.1093/bioinformatics/btac325

Cites

3 of 3 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

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Johansson-Åkhe, I., & Wallner, B.
Affiliations
Linköping University (SE)
Corresponding author
Wallner, Björn
Venue
Bioinformatics
Published
2022-05-16
Volume
38
Issue
12
Pages
3209-3215
ISSN
  • 1367-4803 (ISSN-L)
  • 1367-4811
OpenAlex
W4280632798
Cited by
6
References
3
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1
FWCI
0.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Bioinformatics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • SeRC (VR 2020-03352, CTS 20:453)
  • SNIC, KAW and LiU through (NSC002E)
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
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › vaccines and immunoinformatics approaches
Keywords
protein-peptide docking, graph neural networks, model refinement, protein structure prediction, peptide-receptor interaction, Rosetta
MeSH terms
Deep Learning, Computer Simulation, Monte Carlo Method, Peptides, Protein Conformation, Proteins

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