2014
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0080255
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Structural Interface Parameters Are Discriminatory in Recognising Near-Native Poses of Protein-Protein Interactions

Abstract: Interactions at the molecular level in the cellular environment play a very crucial role in maintaining the physiological functioning of the cell. These molecular interactions exist at varied levels viz. protein-protein interactions, protein-nucleic acid interactions or protein-small molecules interactions. Presently in the field, these interactions and their mechanisms mark intensively studied areas. Molecular interactions can also be studied computationally using the approach named as Molecular Docking. Mole… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
11
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

3
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…( C and D ) Interacting residues between a given dimer of domain 1 (shown in orange) mapped onto the crystal structure in the prepore ( C ) and pore ( D ) respectively. We consider two residues as interacting (interface residue) if their corresponding Cβ atoms were found within the distance of 7 Å ( Malhotra et al, 2014 ). 32 common interacting residues (shown in magenta) for domain 1 were identified by comparing the interacting residues of the corresponding prepore and pore dimers, suggesting that approximately 50% of the interface is preserved between the prepore and pore fit.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…( C and D ) Interacting residues between a given dimer of domain 1 (shown in orange) mapped onto the crystal structure in the prepore ( C ) and pore ( D ) respectively. We consider two residues as interacting (interface residue) if their corresponding Cβ atoms were found within the distance of 7 Å ( Malhotra et al, 2014 ). 32 common interacting residues (shown in magenta) for domain 1 were identified by comparing the interacting residues of the corresponding prepore and pore dimers, suggesting that approximately 50% of the interface is preserved between the prepore and pore fit.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We further analysed the contacts in adjacent monomers of domain 1 in the prepore and pore fit ( Figure 1—figure supplement 3C,D ). We considered two residues as interacting (interface residue) if their corresponding Cβ atoms are within a distance of 7 Å ( Malhotra et al, 2014 ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The residues of the BB loop and αC helix of TRAM and the functionally important Leu 6 residue of VIPER were used to guide the docking. The complexes belonging to clusters having low energy poses, produced by both the programs were ranked using another in-house program, DockScore (Malhotra et al, 2014) to recognise near-native interactions and best poses. The top-ten ranked models were chosen for further detailed analysis of the various interactions possible at the binding interface.…”
Section: Predicting the Putative Binding Site Of Viper Motif On Trammentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(Malhotra et al, 2014), identified the model belonging to HADDOCKgenerated cluster 8 as the top scoring one. In this model of the complex, the TRAM binds at the interface of the dimer.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There are several scoring programs available as a downloadable package [ 19 - 21 ] in order to re-rank the docked poses, but the webserver implementation or availability for easy access is less common [ 17 , 22 , 23 ]. In this article, we report the availability of DockScore in the public domain as a webserver for the scientific community.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%