Protein–protein docking benchmark version 3.0

@article{Hwang2008ProteinproteinDB,
  title={Protein–protein docking benchmark version 3.0},
  author={Howook Hwang and B. Pierce and J. Mintseris and J. Janin and Z. Weng},
  journal={Proteins: Structure},
  year={2008},
  volume={73}
}
We present version 3.0 of our publicly available protein–protein docking benchmark. This update includes 40 new test cases, representing a 48% increase from Benchmark 2.0. For all of the new cases, the crystal structures of both binding partners are available. As with Benchmark 2.0, Structural Classification of Proteins (Murzin et al., J Mol Biol 1995;247:536–540) was used to remove redundant test cases. The 124 unbound‐unbound test cases in Benchmark 3.0 are classified into 88 rigid‐body cases… Expand
Protein–protein docking benchmark version 4.0
TLDR
The protein–protein docking benchmark is updated to include complexes that became available since the previous release, and provides 176 unbound–unbound cases that can be used for protein– protein docking method development and assessment. Expand
Updates to the Integrated Protein-Protein Interaction Benchmarks: Docking Benchmark Version 5 and Affinity Benchmark Version 2.
TLDR
The number of antibody-antigen complexes has increased significantly, by 67% and 74% in the docking and affinity benchmarks, respectively, which now contain 230 and 179 entries. Expand
What method to use for protein-protein docking?
TLDR
It is likely that a combination of template-based and free docking methods can perform better for targets that have template structures available, and another way of improving the reliability of predictions is adding experimental information as restraints, an option built into several docking servers. Expand
Benchmarking and Analysis of Protein Docking Performance in Rosetta v3.2
TLDR
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 and quantifies the reliability of the stochastic docking results. Expand
Protein-protein docking tested in blind predictions: the CAPRI experiment.
  • J. Janin
  • Computer Science, Medicine
  • Molecular bioSystems
  • 2010
Docking algorithms build multimolecular assemblies based on the subunit structures. "Unbound" docking, which starts with the free molecules and allows for conformation changes, may be used to predictExpand
Docking and scoring protein interactions: CAPRI 2009
TLDR
The ability of these algorithms to sample docking poses and to single out specific association modes in 14 targets, representing 11 distinct protein complexes, was evaluated, revealing that 67% of the groups, more than ever before, produced acceptable models or better for at least one target. Expand
A benchmark testing ground for integrating homology modeling and protein docking
TLDR
A benchmark dataset that should help to explore and solve combined modeling and docking problems, and comprises a subset of the experimentally solved ‘target’ complexes from the widely used Docking Benchmark from the Weng Lab (excluding antibody–antigen complexes). Expand
Binding site prediction and improved scoring during flexible protein–protein docking with ATTRACT
TLDR
The ATTRACT protein–protein docking program combined with a coarse‐grained protein model has been used to predict protein– protein complex structures in CAPRI rounds 13–19 and resulted in useful predictions of putative binding sites that can help to limit the systematic docking searches. Expand
Protein–protein docking dealing with the unknown
TLDR
This review focuses on the principles that govern docking, namely the algorithms used for searching and scoring, which are usually referred as the docking problem, and the use of a flexible description of the proteins under study and theUse of biological information as the localization of the hot spots, the important residues for protein–protein binding. Expand
Improved protein docking by predicted interface residues
Scoring docking solutions is a difficult task, and many methods have been developed for this purpose. In docking, only a handful of the hundreds of thousands of models generated by docking algorithmsExpand
...
1
2
3
4
5
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 22 REFERENCES
Protein–protein docking benchmark 2.0: An update
TLDR
A new version of the Protein–Protein Docking Benchmark is presented, reconstructed from the bottom up to include more complexes, particularly focusing on more unbound–unbound test cases, and provides a platform for evaluating the progress of docking methods on a wide variety of targets. Expand
A protein–protein docking benchmark
TLDR
A nonredundant benchmark for testing protein–protein docking algorithms and should benefit the docking community not only as a large curated test set but also as a common ground for comparing different algorithms. Expand
Docking unbound proteins using shape complementarity, desolvation, and electrostatics
TLDR
The key feature of the algorithm is the use of target functions that are highly tolerant to conformational changes upon binding that may provide a general solution to the unbound docking problem. Expand
DOCKGROUND system of databases for protein recognition studies: Unbound structures for docking
TLDR
The main focus of the current release is unbound (experimental and simulated) protein–protein complexes, and the database contains comprehensive sets of complexes suitable for large scale benchmarking of docking algorithms. Expand
Complex-type-dependent scoring functions in protein-protein docking.
TLDR
Combinatorial complex-type-dependent scoring functions for different types of protein-protein complexes, protease/inhibitor, antibody/antigen, enzyme/inhibititor and others are introduced and validated the divide-and-conquer strategy in the docking study. Expand
Assessment of blind predictions of protein–protein interactions: Current status of docking methods
TLDR
The current status of docking procedures for predicting protein–protein interactions starting from their three‐dimensional structure is assessed from a first major evaluation of blind predictions, which reveals genuine progress but also illustrates the remaining serious limitations and points out the need for better scoring functions and more effective ways for handling conformational flexibility. Expand
ZRANK: Reranking protein docking predictions with an optimized energy function
TLDR
A scoring function that utilizes detailed electrostatics, van der Waals, and desolvation to rescore initial‐stage docking predictions is developed and tested and is shown to significantly improve the success rate over the initial ZDOCK rankings across a large benchmark. Expand
Protein docking using surface matching and supervised machine learning
TLDR
A detailed analysis of the difficult to predict complexes revealed that the majority of the homodimer cases were explained by incorrect oligomeric state annotation, and evolutionary conservation and shape complementarity score as well as both underrepresented and overrepresented residue types and residue pairs were found to make the largest contributions to the overall prediction accuracy. Expand
Identification of near‐native structures by clustering protein docking conformations
TLDR
This work structurally cluster the docking decoys generated by four widely‐used FFT‐based protein–protein docking methods, finding that the selection based on cluster size outperforms the ranking based on the inherent scoring function. Expand
Classification of protein complexes based on docking difficulty
  • S. Vajda
  • Computer Science, Medicine
  • Proteins
  • 2005
TLDR
Results show that targets with a moderate expected difficulty were indeed predicted well by a number of groups, whereas the use of additional a priori information was necessary to obtain good results for some very difficult targets. Expand
...
1
2
3
...