2010
DOI: 10.1002/prot.22764
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Performance of ZDOCK and ZRANK in CAPRI rounds 13–19

Abstract: We report the performance of the ZDOCK and ZRANK algorithms in CAPRI rounds 13-19, and introduce a novel measure Atom Contact Frequency (ACF). To compute ACF, we identify the residues that most often make contact with the binding partner in the complete set of ZDOCK predictions for each target. We used ACF to predict the interface of the proteins, which in combination with biological data available in the literature, is a valuable addition to our docking pipeline. Furthermore, we incorporated a straightforward… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
69
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

4
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 73 publications
(70 citation statements)
references
References 37 publications
1
69
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Detailed comparison against other docking algorithms, which goes beyond the scope of this study, should be performed for a systematic evaluation. Because ZRANK is widely used and has shown considerable success in critical assessment of predicted interactions (CAPRI) experiments (35,36), we believe our method will perform comparatively well when evaluated against other top docking algorithms. The benchmarked test dataset contained a diverse set of 44 different targets that varied in size and in secondary and tertiary structures (SI Appendix, Table S3); these difficult test cases provided an opportunity to comprehensively validate the MLRbased structure discrimination.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Detailed comparison against other docking algorithms, which goes beyond the scope of this study, should be performed for a systematic evaluation. Because ZRANK is widely used and has shown considerable success in critical assessment of predicted interactions (CAPRI) experiments (35,36), we believe our method will perform comparatively well when evaluated against other top docking algorithms. The benchmarked test dataset contained a diverse set of 44 different targets that varied in size and in secondary and tertiary structures (SI Appendix, Table S3); these difficult test cases provided an opportunity to comprehensively validate the MLRbased structure discrimination.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Several groups have proposed that contact analysis of docking models can be used to predict the interface of the proteins (interface post-prediction) (Ferná ndez- Recio et al, 2004;Hwang et al, 2010b;Lensink and Wodak, 2010a;Sacquin-Mora et al, 2008;Saladin et al, 2014;de Vries and Bonvin, 2011). We thus also wanted to evaluate how well the binding site was predicted regardless of the peptide conformation.…”
Section: Binding Site Predictionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The protein considered as ligand is moved rotationally and translationally searching for the best tridimensional shape complementarity between receptor and ligand, and the corresponding electrostatic interactions. ZDock is a recommendable protein-protein docking protocol 45,46,47 , mainly when there is no previous information about the residues involved in the interactions between both proteins, neither about the specific region of potential binding sites. In this way, the convenience of using a global systematic search method, like ZDock, in combination with other accurate docking methods has been shown to be a successful strategy to establish protein-protein interactions 48 .…”
Section: Peptidomimetic-protein Blind Docking Using Zdockmentioning
confidence: 99%