Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27560519›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

DockQ: A Quality Measure for Protein-Protein Docking Models.

Sankar Basu, Björn Wallner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 247 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
247citing 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

247 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. A simple probabilistic AlphaFold interaction score.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. A Chromatin Biology Assessment of AlphaFold3.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

187 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Sankar BasuBioinformatics Division, Department of Physics, Chemistry and Biology, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Björn WallnerBioinformatics Division, Department of Physics, Chemistry and Biology, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3772-8279

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The state-of-the-art to assess the structural quality of docking models is currently based on three related yet independent quality measures: Fnat, LRMS, and iRMS as proposed and standardized by CAPRI. These quality measures quantify different aspects of the quality of a particular docking model and need to be viewed together to reveal the true quality, e.g. a model with relatively poor LRMS (>10Å) might still qualify as 'acceptable' with a descent Fnat (>0.50) and iRMS (<3.0Å). This is also the reason why the so called CAPRI criteria for assessing the quality of docking models is defined by applying various ad-hoc cutoffs on these measures to classify a docking model into the four classes: Incorrect, Acceptable, Medium, or High quality. This classification has been useful in CAPRI, but since models are grouped in only four bins it is also rather limiting, making it difficult to rank models, correlate with scoring functions or use it as target function in machine learning algorithms. Here, we present DockQ, a continuous protein-protein docking model quality measure derived by combining Fnat, LRMS, and iRMS to a single score in the range [0, 1] that can be used to assess the quality of protein docking models. By using DockQ on CAPRI models it is possible to almost completely reproduce the original CAPRI classification into Incorrect, Acceptable, Medium and High quality. An average PPV of 94% at 90% Recall demonstrating that there is no need to apply predefined ad-hoc cutoffs to classify docking models. Since DockQ recapitulates the CAPRI classification almost perfectly, it can be viewed as a higher resolution version of the CAPRI classification, making it possible to estimate model quality in a more quantitative way using Z-scores or sum of top ranked models, which has been so valuable for the CASP community. The possibility to directly correlate a quality measure to a scoring function has been crucial for the development of scoring functions for protein structure prediction, and DockQ should be useful in a similar development in the protein docking field. DockQ is available at http://github.com/bjornwallner/DockQ/.

Indexed as

Molecular Docking SimulationAlgorithmsComputational BiologyInternetProtein BindingProtein Interaction MappingProteinsReproducibility of ResultsProteins

Identifiers

PMID27560519
PMCPMC4999177

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.