The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Protein binding site prediction using an empirical scoring function
Open accessAbstract
Most biological processes are mediated by interactions between proteins and their interacting partners including proteins, nucleic acids and small molecules. This work establishes a method called PINUP for binding site prediction of monomeric proteins. With only two weight parameters to optimize, PINUP produces not only 42.2% coverage of actual interfaces (percentage of correctly predicted interface residues in actual interface residues) but also 44.5% accuracy in predicted interfaces (percentage of correctly predicted interface residues in the predicted interface residues) in a cross validation using a 57-protein dataset. By comparison, the expected accuracy via random prediction (percentage of actual interface residues in surface residues) is only 15%. The binding sites of the 57-protein set are found to be easier to predict than that of an independent test set of 68 proteins. The average coverage and accuracy for this independent test set are 30.5 and 29.4%, respectively. The significant gain of PINUP over expected random prediction is attributed to (i) effective residue-energy score and accessible-surface-area-dependent interface-propensity, (ii) isolation of functional constraints contained in the conservation score from the structural constraints through the combination of residue-energy score (for structural constraints) and conservation score and (iii) a consensus region built on top-ranked initial patches.
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
Principles of protein-protein interactions
Jones, S., & Thornton, J. M. (1996) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.93.1.13 · Cited by 2,684
Cited by
Structure-based prediction of protein–protein interactions on a genome-wide scale
Zhang, Q. C., Petrey, D., Deng, L., Qiang, L., Shi, Y., Thu, C. A., Bisikirska, B., Lefebvre, C., Accili, D., Hunter, T., et al. (2012) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature11503 · Cited by 723
Principles of Protein−Protein Interactions: What are the Preferred Ways For Proteins To Interact?
Keskin, O., Gursoy, A., Ma, B., & Nussinov, R. (2008) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/cr040409x · Cited by 697
CPORT: A Consensus Interface Predictor and Its Performance in Prediction-Driven Docking with HADDOCK
de Vries, S. J., & Bonvin, A. M. J. J. (2011) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0017695 · Cited by 324
Tuncbag, N., Gursoy, A., Nussinov, R., & Keskin, O. (2011) · Nature Protocols · doi:10.1038/nprot.2011.367 · Cited by 263
Protein interface conservation across structure space
Zhang, Q. C., Petrey, D., Norel, R., & Honig, B. H. (2010) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1005894107 · Cited by 156
Metadata
- Authors
- Liang, S.
- Venue
- Nucleic Acids Research
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2006-07-28
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 13
- Pages
- 3698-3707
- ISSN
- 0305-1048 (ISSN-L)
- 1362-4962
- OpenAlex
- W2104760790
- Cited by
- 235
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 5.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Protein binding site prediction using an empirical scoring function. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/nar/gkl454
- The paper
- Liang, S. (2006). Protein binding site prediction using an empirical scoring function. Nucleic Acids Research. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkl454
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.