Crossref journal-article
Wiley
Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics (311)
Abstract

AbstractThe 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. This evaluation was performed as part of a communitywide experiment on Critical Assessment of PRedicted Interactions (CAPRI). Seven newly determined structures of protein–protein complexes were available as targets for this experiment. These were the complexes between a kinase and its protein substrate, between a T‐cell receptor β‐chain and a superantigen, and five antigen‐antibody complexes. For each target, the predictors were given the experimental structures of the free components, or of one free and one bound component in a random orientation. The structure of the complex was revealed only at the time of the evaluation. A total of 465 predictions submitted by 19 groups were evaluated. These groups used a wide range of algorithms and scoring functions, some of which were completely novel. The quality of the predicted interactions was evaluated by comparing residue–residue contacts and interface residues to those in the X‐ray structures and by analyzing the fit of the ligand molecules (the smaller of the two proteins in the complex) or of interface residues only, in the predicted versus target complexes. A total of 14 groups produced predictions, ranking from acceptable to highly accurate for five of the seven targets. The use of available biochemical and biological information, and in one instance structural information, played a key role in achieving this result. It was essential for identifying the native binding modes for the five correctly predicted targets, including the kinase‐substrate complex where the enzyme changes conformation on association. But it was also the cause for missing the correct solution for the two remaining unpredicted targets, which involve unexpected antigen‐antibody binding modes. Overall, this analysis reveals genuine progress in docking procedures but also illustrates the remaining serious limitations and points out the need for better scoring functions and more effective ways for handling conformational flexibility. Proteins 2003;52:51–67. © 2003 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

Bibliography

Méndez, R., Leplae, R., De Maria, L., & Wodak, S. J. (2003). Assessment of blind predictions of protein–protein interactions: Current status of docking methods. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics, 52(1), 51–67. Portico.

Authors 4
  1. Raúl Méndez (first)
  2. Raphaël Leplae (additional)
  3. Leonardo De Maria (additional)
  4. Shoshana J. Wodak (additional)
References 47 Referenced 361
  1. 10.1093/oso/9780199637614.001.0001 / Protein‐protein recognition by Kleanthous C (2000)
  2. 10.1016/S0065-3233(02)61001-0
  3. 10.1073/pnas.93.1.13
  4. 10.1038/47048
  5. 10.1093/nar/28.1.289
  6. 10.1038/47056
  7. 10.1093/nar/29.1.242
  8. 10.1006/jmbi.2001.4526
  9. 10.1038/35001009
  10. 10.1073/pnas.061034498
  11. 10.1073/pnas.091096398
  12. 10.1038/35051615
  13. 10.1016/0022-2836(78)90302-9
  14. 10.1002/bip.360240307
  15. 10.1002/prot.10115
  16. 10.1016/0022-2836(91)90859-5
  17. 10.1002/prot.340110406
  18. 10.1016/0022-2836(91)80222-G
  19. 10.1073/pnas.89.6.2195
  20. 10.1093/protein/7.1.39
  21. 10.1038/nsb0494-259
  22. 10.1093/protein/8.4.371
  23. 10.1006/jmbi.1996.0634
  24. 10.1006/jmbi.1997.1203
  25. 10.1093/bioinformatics/14.2.196
  26. 10.1016/S0006-3495(99)77281-4
  27. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0134(20000501)39:2<178::AID-PROT8>3.0.CO;2-6
  28. 10.1038/nsb0396-233
  29. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0134(1997)1 <198::AID-PROT26>3.0.CO;2-I
  30. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0134(1997)1 <226::AID-PROT31>3.0.CO;2-O
  31. 10.1016/S0958-1669(99)00037-3
  32. 10.1073/pnas.192368699
  33. 10.1006/viro.2001.1320
  34. 10.1074/jbc.M202327200
  35. 10.1016/S0969-2126(02)00759-1
  36. 10.1006/jmbi.1998.2439
  37. 10.1006/jmbi.2000.4479
  38. 10.1002/jcc.540120612
  39. 10.1016/S0263-7855(98)80028-3
  40. 10.1006/jsbi.1998.4080
  41. 10.1016/0022-2836(79)90308-5
  42. 10.1107/S0907444901012422
  43. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0134(199710)29:2<240::AID-PROT11>3.0.CO;2-O
  44. 10.1006/jmbi.2000.4479
  45. 10.1107/S0907444900006776
  46. {'key': 'e_1_2_7_47_2', 'volume-title': 'Applications of evolutionary programming for the prediction of protein‐protein interactions. Evolutionary programming V. Proceedings of the 5th annual conference on evolutionary programming', 'author': 'Duncan B', 'year': '1996'} / Applications of evolutionary programming for the prediction of protein‐protein interactions. Evolutionary programming V. Proceedings of the 5th annual conference on evolutionary programming by Duncan B (1996)
  47. 10.1016/0263-7855(86)80002-9
Dates
Type When
Created 22 years, 3 months ago (May 30, 2003, 7:04 a.m.)
Deposited 1 year, 7 months ago (Jan. 9, 2024, 5:31 p.m.)
Indexed 3 days, 15 hours ago (Aug. 30, 2025, 12:43 p.m.)
Issued 22 years, 3 months ago (May 13, 2003)
Published 22 years, 3 months ago (May 13, 2003)
Published Online 22 years, 3 months ago (May 13, 2003)
Published Print 22 years, 2 months ago (July 1, 2003)
Funders 1
  1. Marie Curie Host Training
    Awards1
    1. QLK3-1999-51297

@article{M_ndez_2003, title={Assessment of blind predictions of protein–protein interactions: Current status of docking methods}, volume={52}, ISSN={1097-0134}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/prot.10393}, DOI={10.1002/prot.10393}, number={1}, journal={Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics}, publisher={Wiley}, author={Méndez, Raúl and Leplae, Raphaël and De Maria, Leonardo and Wodak, Shoshana J.}, year={2003}, month=may, pages={51–67} }