Deep Local Analysis evaluates protein docking conformations with locally oriented cubes
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Motivation: With the recent advances in protein 3D structure prediction, protein interactions are becoming more central than ever before. Here, we address the problem of determining how proteins interact with one another. More specifically, we investigate the possibility of discriminating near-native protein complex conformations from incorrect ones by exploiting local environments around interfacial residues. Results: Deep Local Analysis (DLA)-Ranker is a deep learning framework applying 3D convolutions to a set of locally oriented cubes representing the protein interface. It explicitly considers the local geometry of the interfacial residues along with their neighboring atoms and the regions of the interface with different solvent accessibility. We assessed its performance on three docking benchmarks made of half a million acceptable and incorrect conformations. We show that DLA-Ranker successfully identifies near-native conformations from ensembles generated by molecular docking. It surpasses or competes with other deep learning-based scoring functions. We also showcase its usefulness to discover alternative interfaces. Availability and implementation: http://gitlab.lcqb.upmc.fr/dla-ranker/DLA-Ranker.git 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.
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
Improved prediction of protein-protein interactions using AlphaFold2
Bryant, P., Pozzati, G., & Elofsson, A. (2021) · doi:10.1101/2021.09.15.460468 · Cited by 1,025 · see citing works
Vreven, T., Moal, I. H., Vangone, A., Pierce, B. G., Kastritis, P. L., Torchala, M., Chaleil, R., Jiménez-García, B., Bates, P. A., Fernandez-Recio, J., et al. (2015) · Journal of Molecular Biology · doi:10.1016/j.jmb.2015.07.016 · Cited by 424 · see citing works
Modeling protein–protein and protein–peptide complexes: CAPRI 6th edition
Lensink, M. F., Velankar, S., & Wodak, S. J. (2017) · Proteins Structure Function and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.25215 · Cited by 222 · cited 1× · see citing works
“The Critical Assessment of PRedicted Interactions (CAPRI) classifies predicted protein complex conformations in four categories, namely incorrect, acceptable, medium and high quality, based on the extent to which they differ from the corresponding experimental structures (Lensink et al. , 2017).”
Improved Docking of Protein Models by a Combination of Alphafold2 and ClusPro
Ghani, U., Desta, I., Jindal, A., Khan, O., Jones, G., Hashemi, N., Kotelnikov, S., Padhorny, D., Vajda, S., & Kozakov, D. (2021) · doi:10.1101/2021.09.07.459290 · Cited by 68 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Mohseni Behbahani, Y., Crouzet, S., Laine, E., & Carbone, A.
- Affiliations
- Sorbonne Université, CNRS, IBPS, Laboratory of Computational and Quantitative Biology (LCQB), UMR 7238 , Paris 75005, France
- Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
- Corresponding author
- Carbone, Alessandra
- Venue
- Bioinformatics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2022-08-13
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 19
- Pages
- 4505-4512
- ISSN
- 1367-4803 (ISSN-L)
- 1367-4811
- PMC
- PMC9525006
- OpenAlex
- W4291237382
- Cited by
- 16
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2
- FWCI
- 1.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Bioinformatics (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- HAL (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- HAL (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- From the French Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-21-CE17-0046)
- 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 › Machine Learning in Bioinformatics
- Keywords
- protein docking, protein-protein interaction, protein complex conformation, interfacial residues, 3D convolution, solvent accessibility
- MeSH terms
- Protein Binding, Protein Conformation, Proteins, 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