The DOI matches its Crossref record; 40 of the 40 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
CPORT: A Consensus Interface Predictor and Its Performance in Prediction-Driven Docking with HADDOCK
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Macromolecular complexes are the molecular machines of the cell. Knowledge at the atomic level is essential to understand and influence their function. However, their number is huge and a significant fraction is extremely difficult to study using classical structural methods such as NMR and X-ray crystallography. Therefore, the importance of large-scale computational approaches in structural biology is evident. This study combines two of these computational approaches, interface prediction and docking, to obtain atomic-level structures of protein-protein complexes, starting from their unbound components. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Here we combine six interface prediction web servers into a consensus method called CPORT (Consensus Prediction Of interface Residues in Transient complexes). We show that CPORT gives more stable and reliable predictions than each of the individual predictors on its own. A protocol was developed to integrate CPORT predictions into our data-driven docking program HADDOCK. For cases where experimental information is limited, this prediction-driven docking protocol presents an alternative to ab initio docking, the docking of complexes without the use of any information. Prediction-driven docking was performed on a large and diverse set of protein-protein complexes in a blind manner. Our results indicate that the performance of the HADDOCK-CPORT combination is competitive with ZDOCK-ZRANK, a state-of-the-art ab initio docking/scoring combination. Finally, the original interface predictions could be further improved by interface post-prediction (contact analysis of the docking solutions). CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: The current study shows that blind, prediction-driven docking using CPORT and HADDOCK is competitive with ab initio docking methods. This is encouraging since prediction-driven docking represents the absolute bottom line for data-driven docking: any additional biological knowledge will greatly improve the results obtained by prediction-driven docking alone. Finally, the fact that original interface predictions could be further improved by interface post-prediction suggests that prediction-driven docking has not yet been pushed to the limit. A web server for CPORT is freely available at http://haddock.chem.uu.nl/services/CPORT.
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
Crystallography & NMR System: A New Software Suite for Macromolecular Structure Determination
Brünger, A. T., Adams, P. D., Clore, G. M., DeLano, W. L., Gros, P., Grosse-Kunstleve, R. W., Jiang, J. S., Kuszewski, J., Nilges, M., Pannu, N. S., et al. (1998) · Acta Crystallographica Section D Biological Crystallography · doi:10.1107/s0907444998003254 · Cited by 15,715
HADDOCK: A Protein−Protein Docking Approach Based on Biochemical or Biophysical Information
Dominguez, C., Boelens, R., & Bonvin, A. M. J. J. (2003) · Journal of the American Chemical Society · doi:10.1021/ja026939x · Cited by 3,187
Self-citationThe HADDOCK web server for data-driven biomolecular docking
de Vries, S. J., van Dijk, M., & Bonvin, A. M. J. J. (2010) · Nature Protocols · doi:10.1038/nprot.2010.32 · Cited by 1,400
Self-citationZDOCK: An initial‐stage protein‐docking algorithm
Chen, R., Li, L., & Weng, Z. (2003) · Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.10389 · Cited by 1,393 · cited 18×
“Indeed, our results show that in the complete absence of experimental information, ZDOCK-ZRANK is still somewhat better than HADDOCK-CPORT.”
InfluentialKatchalski-Katzir, E., Shariv, I., Eisenstein, M., Friesem, A. A., Aflalo, C., & Vakser, I. A. (1992) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.89.6.2195 · Cited by 1,107
Estimating the size of the human interactome
Stumpf, M. P. H., Thorne, T., de Silva, E., Stewart, R., An, H. J., Lappe, M., & Wiuf, C. (2008) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0708078105 · Cited by 824
HADDOCK versus HADDOCK: New features and performance of HADDOCK2.0 on the CAPRI targets
de Vries, S. J., van Dijk, A. D. J., Krzeminski, M., van Dijk, M., Thureau, A., Hsu, V., Wassenaar, T., & Bonvin, A. M. J. J. (2007) · Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.21723 · Cited by 556
Self-citationProtein–protein docking benchmark version 4.0
Hwang, H., Vreven, T., Janin, J., & Weng, Z. (2010) · Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.22830 · Cited by 476
ZRANK: Reranking protein docking predictions with an optimized energy function
Pierce, B., & Weng, Z. (2007) · Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.21373 · Cited by 444
Neuvirth, H., Raz, R., & Schreiber, G. (2004) · Journal of Molecular Biology · doi:10.1016/j.jmb.2004.02.040 · Cited by 436
Cited by
The HADDOCK2.2 Web Server: User-Friendly Integrative Modeling of Biomolecular Complexes
van Zundert, G. C. P., Rodrigues, J. P. G. L. M., Trellet, M., Schmitz, C., Kastritis, P. L., Karaca, E., Melquiond, A. S. J., van Dijk, M., de Vries, S. J., & Bonvin, A. M. J. J. (2016) · Journal of Molecular Biology · doi:10.1016/j.jmb.2015.09.014 · Cited by 2,785
Self-citationVreven, 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
Self-citationSpotOn: High Accuracy Identification of Protein-Protein Interface Hot-Spots
Moreira, I. S., Koukos, P. I., Melo, R., Almeida, J. G., Preto, A. J., Schaarschmidt, J., Trellet, M., Gümüş, Z. H., Costa, J., & Bonvin, A. M. J. J. (2017) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-017-08321-2 · Cited by 98
Self-citationThe proteomics and interactomics of human erythrocytes
Goodman, S. R., Daescu, O., Kakhniashvili, D. G., & Zivanic, M. (2013) · Experimental Biology and Medicine · doi:10.1177/1535370213488474 · Cited by 71
Ford, C. T., Yasa, S., Jacob Machado, D., White, R. A., & Janies, D. A. (2023) · Frontiers in Virology · doi:10.3389/fviro.2023.1172027 · Cited by 9
Metadata
- Authors
- de Vries, S. J., & Bonvin, A. M. J. J.
- Venue
- PLoS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2011-03-25
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- e17695
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2012104865
- Cited by
- 324
- References
- 40
- FWCI
- 4.70
- 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: CPORT: A Consensus Interface Predictor and Its Performance in Prediction-Driven Docking with HADDOCK. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0017695
- The paper
- de Vries, S. J., & Bonvin, A. M. J. J. (2011). CPORT: A Consensus Interface Predictor and Its Performance in Prediction-Driven Docking with HADDOCK. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0017695
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.