Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27846259›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Introducing a Clustering Step in a Consensus Approach for the Scoring of Protein-Protein Docking Models.

Edrisse Chermak, Renato De Donato, Marc F Lensink, Andrea Petta, Luigi Serra, Vittorio Scarano, Luigi Cavallo, Romina Oliva

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 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Docking approaches for modeling multi-molecular assemblies.Current opinion in structural biology · 2020
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. 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

8 authors.

Edrisse ChermakKaust Catalysis Center, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Thuwal, 23955-6900, Saudi Arabia.
Renato De DonatoKaust Catalysis Center, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Thuwal, 23955-6900, Saudi Arabia.
Marc F LensinkUniversity Lille, CNRS UMR8576 UGSF, F-59000, Lille, France.
Andrea PettaDipartimento di Informatica ed Applicazioni, University of Salerno, Via Giovanni Paolo II, 132, 84084, Fisciano (SA), Italy.
Luigi SerraDipartimento di Informatica ed Applicazioni, University of Salerno, Via Giovanni Paolo II, 132, 84084, Fisciano (SA), Italy.
Vittorio ScaranoDipartimento di Informatica ed Applicazioni, University of Salerno, Via Giovanni Paolo II, 132, 84084, Fisciano (SA), Italy.
Luigi CavalloKaust Catalysis Center, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Thuwal, 23955-6900, Saudi Arabia.
Romina OlivaDepartment of Sciences and Technologies, University "Parthenope" of Naples, Centro Direzionale Isola C4 80143, Naples, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Correctly scoring protein-protein docking models to single out native-like ones is an open challenge. It is also an object of assessment in CAPRI (Critical Assessment of PRedicted Interactions), the community-wide blind docking experiment. We introduced in the field the first pure consensus method, CONSRANK, which ranks models based on their ability to match the most conserved contacts in the ensemble they belong to. In CAPRI, scorers are asked to evaluate a set of available models and select the top ten ones, based on their own scoring approach. Scorers' performance is ranked based on the number of targets/interfaces for which they could provide at least one correct solution. In such terms, blind testing in CAPRI Round 30 (a joint prediction round with CASP11) has shown that critical cases for CONSRANK are represented by targets showing multiple interfaces or for which only a very small number of correct solutions are available. To address these challenging cases, CONSRANK has now been modified to include a contact-based clustering of the models as a preliminary step of the scoring process. We used an agglomerative hierarchical clustering based on the number of common inter-residue contacts within the models. Two criteria, with different thresholds, were explored in the cluster generation, setting either the number of common contacts or of total clusters. For each clustering approach, after selecting the top (most populated) ten clusters, CONSRANK was run on these clusters and the top-ranked model for each cluster was selected, in the limit of 10 models per target. We have applied our modified scoring approach, Clust-CONSRANK, to SCORE_SET, a set of CAPRI scoring models made recently available by CAPRI assessors, and to the subset of homodimeric targets in CAPRI Round 30 for which CONSRANK failed to include a correct solution within the ten selected models. Results show that, for the challenging cases, the clustering step typically enriches the ten top ranked models in native-like solutions. The best performing clustering approaches we tested indeed lead to more than double the number of cases for which at least one correct solution can be included within the top ten ranked models.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsMolecular Docking SimulationResearch DesignBinding SitesCluster AnalysisConsensusDatabases, ProteinProtein BindingProtein Interaction Domains and MotifsProtein Interaction MappingProteinsProtein Structure, SecondarySoftwareProteins

Identifiers

PMID27846259
PMCPMC5112798

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.