ArticleProteins2017
Structural quality of unrefined models in protein docking.
Article in Proteins, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of AI-Predicted GH11 Xylanase Models Against a Previously Unreported Experimental Structure: Implications for Conformational Accuracy and Ligand Binding.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- GWYRE: A Resource for Mapping Variants onto Experimental and Modeled Structures of Human Protein Complexes.Journal of molecular biology · 2022Article
- Oncoviruses Can Drive Cancer by Rewiring Signaling Pathways Through Interface Mimicry.Frontiers in oncology · 2019Article
- Modeling CAPRI targets 110-120 by template-based and free docking using contact potential and combined scoring function.Proteins · 2018Article
- Prediction of Host-Pathogen Interactions for Helicobacter pylori by Interface Mimicry and Implications to Gastric Cancer.Journal of molecular biology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Structural characterization of protein-protein interactions is essential for understanding life processes at the molecular level. However, only a fraction of protein interactions have experimentally resolved structures. Thus, reliable computational methods for structural modeling of protein interactions (protein docking) are important for generating such structures and understanding the principles of protein recognition. Template-based docking techniques that utilize structural similarity between target protein-protein interaction and cocrystallized protein-protein complexes (templates) are gaining popularity due to generally higher reliability than that of the template-free docking. However, the template-based approach lacks explicit penalties for intermolecular penetration, as opposed to the typical free docking where such penalty is inherent due to the shape complementarity paradigm. Thus, template-based docking models are commonly assumed to require special treatment to remove large structural penetrations. In this study, we compared clashes in the template-based and free docking of the same proteins, with crystallographically determined and modeled structures. The results show that for the less accurate protein models, free docking produces fewer clashes than the template-based approach. However, contrary to the common expectation, in acceptable and better quality docking models of unbound crystallographically determined proteins, the clashes in the template-based docking are comparable to those in the free docking, due to the overall higher quality of the template-based docking predictions. This suggests that the free docking refinement protocols can in principle be applied to the template-based docking predictions as well. Proteins 2016; 85:39-45. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Indexed as
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.