The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Benchmarking and Analysis of Protein Docking Performance in Rosetta v3.2
Open accessAbstract
RosettaDock has been increasingly used in protein docking and design strategies in order to predict the structure of protein-protein interfaces. Here we test capabilities of RosettaDock 3.2, part of the newly developed Rosetta v3.2 modeling suite, against Docking Benchmark 3.0, and compare it with RosettaDock v2.3, the latest version of the previous Rosetta software package. The benchmark contains a diverse set of 116 docking targets including 22 antibody-antigen complexes, 33 enzyme-inhibitor complexes, and 60 'other' complexes. These targets were further classified by expected docking difficulty into 84 rigid-body targets, 17 medium targets, and 14 difficult targets. We carried out local docking perturbations for each target, using the unbound structures when available, in both RosettaDock v2.3 and v3.2. Overall the performances of RosettaDock v2.3 and v3.2 were similar. RosettaDock v3.2 achieved 56 docking funnels, compared to 49 in v2.3. A breakdown of docking performance by protein complex type shows that RosettaDock v3.2 achieved docking funnels for 63% of antibody-antigen targets, 62% of enzyme-inhibitor targets, and 35% of 'other' targets. In terms of docking difficulty, RosettaDock v3.2 achieved funnels for 58% of rigid-body targets, 30% of medium targets, and 14% of difficult targets. For targets that failed, we carry out additional analyses to identify the cause of failure, which showed that binding-induced backbone conformation changes account for a majority of failures. We also present a bootstrap statistical analysis that quantifies the reliability of the stochastic docking results. Finally, we demonstrate the additional functionality available in RosettaDock v3.2 by incorporating small-molecules and non-protein co-factors in docking of a smaller target set. This study marks the most extensive benchmarking of the RosettaDock module to date and establishes a baseline for future research in protein interface modeling and structure prediction.
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
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
Leaver-Fay (2011) · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-381270-4.00019-6 · Cited by 1,904
Docking and scoring protein interactions: CAPRI 2009
Lensink, M. F., & Wodak, S. J. (2010) · Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.22818 · Cited by 226
Cited by
The Rosetta All-Atom Energy Function for Macromolecular Modeling and Design
Alford, R. F., Leaver-Fay, A., Jeliazkov, J. R., O’Meara, M. J., DiMaio, F. P., Park, H., Shapovalov, M. V., Renfrew, P. D., Mulligan, V. K., Kappel, K., et al. (2017) · Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation · doi:10.1021/acs.jctc.7b00125 · Cited by 1,532
Self-citationDefining the human C2H2 zinc finger degrome targeted by thalidomide analogs through CRBN
Sievers, Q. L., Petzold, G., Bunker, R. D., Renneville, A., Słabicki, M., Liddicoat, B. J., Abdulrahman, W., Mikkelsen, T., Ebert, B. L., & Thomä, N. H. (2018) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aat0572 · Cited by 537
“The Rosetta software package (19) was used to computationally dock all human C2H2 ZFs into the complementary binding groove of CRBN.”
MethodSequence co-evolution gives 3D contacts and structures of protein complexes
Hopf, T. A., Schärfe, C. P. I., Rodrigues, J. P. G. L. M., Green, A. G., Kohlbacher, O., Sander, C., Bonvin, A. M. J. J., & Marks, D. S. (2014) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.03430 · Cited by 515
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
Large-scale determination of previously unsolved protein structures using evolutionary information
Ovchinnikov, S., Kinch, L., Park, H., Liao, Y., Pei, J., Kim, D. E., Kamisetty, H., Grishin, N. V., & Baker, D. (2015) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.09248 · Cited by 222
Metadata
- Authors
- Chaudhury, S., Berrondo, M., Weitzner, B. D., Muthu, P., Bergman, H., & Gray, J. J.
- Venue
- PLoS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2011-08-02
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- e22477
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2074713036
- Cited by
- 310
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 4.35
- 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
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.