Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20466807›Full record

ArticleNucleic acids research2010

Pushing the limits of what is achievable in protein-DNA docking: benchmarking HADDOCK's performance.

Marc van Dijk, Alexandre M J J Bonvin

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Nucleic acids research, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. MARTINI-Based Protein-DNA Coarse-Grained HADDOCKing.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2019
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Solvated protein-DNA docking using HADDOCK.Journal of biomolecular NMR · 2013
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Marc van DijkBijvoet Center for Biomolecular Research, Science Faculty, Utrecht University, Padualaan 8, 3584 CH Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Alexandre M J J Bonvin

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The intrinsic flexibility of DNA and the difficulty of identifying its interaction surface have long been challenges that prevented the development of efficient protein-DNA docking methods. We have demonstrated the ability our flexible data-driven docking method HADDOCK to deal with these before, by using custom-built DNA structural models. Here we put our method to the test on a set of 47 complexes from the protein-DNA docking benchmark. We show that HADDOCK is able to predict many of the specific DNA conformational changes required to assemble the interface(s). Our DNA analysis and modelling procedure captures the bend and twist motions occurring upon complex formation and uses these to generate custom-built DNA structural models, more closely resembling the bound form, for use in a second docking round. We achieve throughout the benchmark an overall success rate of 94% of one-star solutions or higher (interface root mean square deviation ≤4 A and fraction of native contacts >10%) according to CAPRI criteria. Our improved protocol successfully predicts even the challenging protein-DNA complexes in the benchmark. Finally, our method is the first to readily dock multiple molecules (N > 2) simultaneously, pushing the limits of what is currently achievable in the field of protein-DNA docking.

Indexed as

SoftwareBenchmarkingDNADNA-Binding ProteinsModels, MolecularNucleic Acid ConformationProtein ConformationDNADNA-Binding Proteins

Identifiers

PMID20466807
PMCPMC2943626

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.