ArticleBMC biophysics2012
Arbitrary protein-protein docking targets biologically relevant interfaces.
Article in BMC biophysics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
19 citing papers in PubMed.
- Microbiota dictate T cell clonal selection to augment graft-versus-host disease after stem cell transplantation.Immunity · 2024Article
- Discriminating physiological from non-physiological interfaces in structures of protein complexes: A community-wide study.Proteomics · 2023Article
- From complete cross-docking to partners identification and binding sites predictions.PLoS computational biology · 2022Article
- Integrating T cell receptor sequences and transcriptional profiles by clonotype neighbor graph analysis (CoNGA).Nature biotechnology · 2022Article
- Functionally specialized human CD4eLife · 2020Article
- PEBP1/RKIP behavior: a mirror of actin-membrane organization.Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS · 2020Article
- Article
- Protein-protein binding supersites.PLoS computational biology · 2019Article
- Identification and visualization of protein binding regions with the ArDock server.Nucleic acids research · 2018Article
- Heterodimer Binding Scaffolds Recognition via the Analysis of Kinetically Hot Residues.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018Article
- Docking-based modeling of protein-protein interfaces for extensive structural and functional characterization of missense mutations.PloS one · 2017Article
- Protein social behavior makes a stronger signal for partner identification than surface geometry.Proteins · 2017Article
- Great interactions: How binding incorrect partners can teach us about protein recognition and function.Proteins · 2016Article
- Article
- Inferring processes underlying B-cell repertoire diversity.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2015Article
- Algorithmic approaches to protein-protein interaction site prediction.Algorithms for molecular biology : AMB · 2015Article
- Quantifying selection in immune receptor repertoires.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2014Article
- On the binding affinity of macromolecular interactions: daring to ask why proteins interact.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2013Review
- Protein-protein interactions in a crowded environment: an analysis via cross-docking simulations and evolutionary information.PLoS computational biology · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProtein-protein recognition is of fundamental importance in the vast majority of biological processes. However, it has already been demonstrated that it is very hard to distinguish true complexes from false complexes in so-called cross-docking experiments, where binary protein complexes are separated and the isolated proteins are all docked against each other and scored. Does this result, at least in part, reflect a physical reality? False complexes could reflect possible nonspecific or weak associations.
resultsIn this paper, we investigate the twilight zone of protein-protein interactions, building on an interesting outcome of cross-docking experiments: false complexes seem to favor residues from the true interaction site, suggesting that randomly chosen partners dock in a non-random fashion on protein surfaces. Here, we carry out arbitrary docking of a non-redundant data set of 198 proteins, with more than 300 randomly chosen "probe" proteins. We investigate the tendency of arbitrary partners to aggregate at localized regions of the protein surfaces, the shape and compositional bias of the generated interfaces, and the potential of this property to predict biologically relevant binding sites. We show that the non-random localization of arbitrary partners after protein-protein docking is a generic feature of protein structures. The interfaces generated in this way are not systematically planar or curved, but tend to be closer than average to the center of the proteins. These results can be used to predict biological interfaces with an AUC value up to 0.69 alone, and 0.72 when used in combination with evolutionary information. An appropriate choice of random partners and number of docking models make this method computationally practical. It is also noted that nonspecific interfaces can point to alternate interaction sites in the case of proteins with multiple interfaces. We illustrate the usefulness of arbitrary docking using PEBP (Phosphatidylethanolamine binding protein), a kinase inhibitor with multiple partners.
conclusionsAn approach using arbitrary docking, and based solely on physical properties, can successfully identify biologically pertinent protein interfaces.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.