The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Identification of computational hot spots in protein interfaces: combining solvent accessibility and inter-residue potentials improves the accuracy
Open accessAbstract
Motivation:Hot spots are residues comprising only a small fraction of interfaces yet accounting for the majority of the binding energy. These residues are critical in understanding the principles of protein interactions. Experimental studies like alanine scanning mutagenesis require significant effort; therefore, there is a need for computational methods to predict hot spots in protein interfaces. Results:We present a new intuitive efficient method to determine computational hot spots based on conservation (C), solvent accessibility [accessible surface area (ASA)] and statistical pairwise residue potentials (PP) of the interface residues. Combination of these features is examined in a comprehensive way to study their effect in hot spot detection. The predicted hot spots are observed to match with the experimental hot spots with an accuracy of 70% and a precision of 64% in Alanine Scanning Energetics Database (ASEdb), and accuracy of 70% and a precision of 73% in Binding Interface Database (BID). Several machine learning methods are also applied to predict hot spots. Performance of our empirical approach exceeds learning-based methods and other existing hot spot prediction methods. Residue occlusion from solvent in the complexes and pairwise potentials are found to be the main discriminative features in hot spot prediction. Conclusion:Our empirical method is a simple approach in hot spot prediction yet with its high accuracy and computational effectiveness. We believe that this method provides insights for the researchers working on characterization of protein binding sites and design of specific therapeutic agents for protein interactions. Availability:The list of training and test sets are available as Supplementary Data at http://prism.ccbb.ku.edu.tr/hotpoint/supplement.doc Contact: agursoy@ku.edu.tr; okeskin@ku.edu.tr Supplementary information: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
Overview
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
Verification
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.
Citations
Cites
Anatomy of hot spots in protein interfaces
Bogan, A. A., & Thorn, K. S. (1998) · Journal of Molecular Biology · doi:10.1006/jmbi.1998.1843 · Cited by 1,988
Guerois, R., Nielsen, J. E., & Serrano, L. (2002) · Journal of Molecular Biology · doi:10.1016/s0022-2836(02)00442-4 · Cited by 1,728
Evolutionary Rate in the Protein Interaction Network
Fraser, H. B., Hirsh, A. E., Steinmetz, L. M., Scharfe, C., & Feldman, M. W. (2002) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1068696 · Cited by 869
Unraveling hot spots in binding interfaces: progress and challenges
DeLano, W. L. (2002) · Current Opinion in Structural Biology · doi:10.1016/s0959-440x(02)00283-x · Cited by 767
Hot spots—A review of the protein–protein interface determinant amino‐acid residues
Moreira, I. S., Fernandes, P. A., & Ramos, M. J. (2007) · Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.21396 · Cited by 760 · cited 4×
“Most machine learning (ML)-based hot spot prediction methods learn complex relations between training data and hot spots; however, it is very difficult to translate these relations into simple, intuitive rules (Ofran and Rost, 2007).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluential
Cited by
Kozakov, D., Grove, L. E., Hall, D. R., Bohnuud, T., Mottarella, S. E., Luo, L., Xia, B., Beglov, D., & Vajda, S. (2015) · Nature Protocols · doi:10.1038/nprot.2015.043 · Cited by 648
Ali, S., Hassan, M., Islam, A., & Ahmad, F. (2014) · Current Protein & Peptide Science · doi:10.2174/1389203715666140327114232 · Cited by 447
Predicting Protein–Protein Interactions from the Molecular to the Proteome Level
Keskin, O., Tuncbag, N., & Gursoy, A. (2016) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.5b00683 · Cited by 369
Heffernan, R., Yang, Y., Paliwal, K., & Zhou, Y. (2017) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btx218 · Cited by 357
Phosphorylation in protein-protein binding: effect on stability and function
Nishi, H., Hashimoto, K., & Panchenko, A. R. (2011) · Structure · doi:10.1016/j.str.2011.09.021 · Cited by 322
Metadata
- Authors
- Tuncbag, N., Gursoy, A., & Keskin, O.
- Venue
- Bioinformatics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2009-04-08
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1513-1520
- ISSN
- 1367-4803 (ISSN-L)
- 1367-4811
- OpenAlex
- W2141624700
- Cited by
- 254
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 8.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Identification of computational hot spots in protein interfaces: combining solvent accessibility and inter-residue potentials improves the accuracy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/bioinformatics/btp240
- The paper
- Tuncbag, N., Gursoy, A., & Keskin, O. (2009). Identification of computational hot spots in protein interfaces: combining solvent accessibility and inter-residue potentials improves the accuracy. Bioinformatics. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btp240
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.