Literature DB >> 15981261

Assessment of CAPRI predictions in rounds 3-5 shows progress in docking procedures.

Raúl Méndez1, Raphaël Leplae, Marc F Lensink, Shoshana J Wodak.   

Abstract

The current status of docking procedures for predicting protein-protein interactions starting from their three-dimensional (3D) structure is reassessed by evaluating blind predictions, performed during 2003-2004 as part of Rounds 3-5 of the community-wide experiment on Critical Assessment of PRedicted Interactions (CAPRI). Ten newly determined structures of protein-protein complexes were used as targets for these rounds. They comprised 2 enzyme-inhibitor complexes, 2 antigen-antibody complexes, 2 complexes involved in cellular signaling, 2 homo-oligomers, and a complex between 2 components of the bacterial cellulosome. For most targets, the predictors were given the experimental structures of 1 unbound and 1 bound component, with the latter in a random orientation. For some, the structure of the free component was derived from that of a related protein, requiring the use of homology modeling. In some of the targets, significant differences in conformation were displayed between the bound and unbound components, representing a major challenge for the docking procedures. For 1 target, predictions could not go to completion. In total, 1866 predictions submitted by 30 groups were evaluated. Over one-third of these groups applied completely novel docking algorithms and scoring functions, with several of them specifically addressing the challenge of dealing with side-chain and backbone flexibility. The quality of the predicted interactions was evaluated by comparison to the experimental structures of the targets, made available for the evaluation, using the well-agreed-upon criteria used previously. Twenty-four groups, which for the first time included an automatic Web server, produced predictions ranking from acceptable to highly accurate for all targets, including those where the structures of the bound and unbound forms differed substantially. These results and a brief survey of the methods used by participants of CAPRI Rounds 3-5 suggest that genuine progress in the performance of docking methods is being achieved, with CAPRI acting as the catalyst.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15981261     DOI: 10.1002/prot.20551

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proteins        ISSN: 0887-3585


  112 in total

1.  Macromolecular docking restrained by a small angle X-ray scattering profile.

Authors:  Dina Schneidman-Duhovny; Michal Hammel; Andrej Sali
Journal:  J Struct Biol       Date:  2010-10-12       Impact factor: 2.867

2.  A generalized approach to sampling backbone conformations with RosettaDock for CAPRI rounds 13-19.

Authors:  Aroop Sircar; Sidhartha Chaudhury; Krishna Praneeth Kilambi; Monica Berrondo; Jeffrey J Gray
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2010-11-15

3.  Automatic prediction of flexible regions improves the accuracy of protein-protein docking models.

Authors:  Xiaohu Luo; Qiang Lü; Hongjie Wu; Lingyun Yang; Xu Huang; Peide Qian; Gang Fu
Journal:  J Mol Model       Date:  2011-09-27       Impact factor: 1.810

4.  The HADDOCK web server for data-driven biomolecular docking.

Authors:  Sjoerd J de Vries; Marc van Dijk; Alexandre M J J Bonvin
Journal:  Nat Protoc       Date:  2010-04-15       Impact factor: 13.491

5.  Protein-Protein Docking Using EMAP in CHARMM and Support Vector Machine: Application to Ab/Ag Complexes.

Authors:  Jon D Wright; Karen Sargsyan; Xiongwu Wu; Bernard R Brooks; Carmay Lim
Journal:  J Chem Theory Comput       Date:  2013-08-16       Impact factor: 6.006

6.  Cryo-EM Data Are Superior to Contact and Interface Information in Integrative Modeling.

Authors:  Sjoerd J de Vries; Isaure Chauvot de Beauchêne; Christina E M Schindler; Martin Zacharias
Journal:  Biophys J       Date:  2016-02-01       Impact factor: 4.033

7.  Bayesian Active Learning for Optimization and Uncertainty Quantification in Protein Docking.

Authors:  Yue Cao; Yang Shen
Journal:  J Chem Theory Comput       Date:  2020-07-06       Impact factor: 6.006

8.  How good is automated protein docking?

Authors:  Dima Kozakov; Dmitri Beglov; Tanggis Bohnuud; Scott E Mottarella; Bing Xia; David R Hall; Sandor Vajda
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2013-10-17

9.  Near-native structure refinement using in vacuo energy minimization.

Authors:  Christopher M Summa; Michael Levitt
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2007-02-20       Impact factor: 11.205

10.  Identification of structural mechanisms of HIV-1 protease specificity using computational peptide docking: implications for drug resistance.

Authors:  Sidhartha Chaudhury; Jeffrey J Gray
Journal:  Structure       Date:  2009-12-09       Impact factor: 5.006

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.