Cited by 28Protein Structure and DynamicsComputational Drug Discovery MethodsMachine Learning in Bioinformatics

Exploring the interplay between experimental methods and the performance of predictors of binding affinity change upon mutations in protein complexes

Open access
Geng, Cunliang, Vangone, Anna, Bonvin, Alexandre M.J.J.·2016·Protein Engineering Design and Selection

Abstract

Reliable prediction of binding affinity changes (ΔΔG) upon mutations in protein complexes relies not only on the performance of computational methods but also on the availability and quality of experimental data. Binding affinity changes can be measured by various experimental methods with different accuracies and limitations. To understand the impact of these on the prediction of binding affinity change, we present the Database of binding Affinity Change Upon Mutation (DACUM), a database of 1872 binding affinity changes upon single-point mutations, a subset of the SKEMPI database (Moal,I.H. and Fernández-Recio,J. Bioinformatics, 2012;28:2600-2607) extended with information on the experimental methods used for ΔΔG measurements. The ΔΔG data were classified into different data sets based on the experimental method used and the position of the mutation (interface and non-interface). We tested the prediction performance of the original HADDOCK score, a newly trained version of it and mutation Cutoff Scanning Matrix (Pires,D.E.V., Ascher,D.B. and Blundell,T.L. Bioinformatics 2014;30:335-342), one of the best reported ΔΔG predictors so far, on these various data sets. Our results demonstrate a strong impact of the experimental methods on the performance of binding affinity change predictors for protein complexes. This underscores the importance of properly considering and carefully choosing experimental methods in the development of novel binding affinity change predictors. The DACUM database is available online at https://github.com/haddocking/DACUM.

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/protein/gzw020

Cites

21 of 21 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
Geng, C., Vangone, A., & Bonvin, A. M. J. J.
Affiliations
Utrecht University (NL)
Corresponding author
Bonvin, Alexandre M.J.J.
Venue
Protein Engineering Design and Selection
Published
2016-06-09
Volume
29
Issue
8
Pages
291-299
ISSN
  • 0269-2139 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-0126
  • 1741-0134
OpenAlex
W2412612592
Cited by
28
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2
FWCI
1.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Protein Engineering Design and Selection (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • European Commission (675728, 659025)
  • China Scholarship Council
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 complexes, point mutations, experimental measurement methods, protein-protein interaction
MeSH terms
Mutation, Protein Binding, Proteins, Computational Biology

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