ArticlePloS one2020
Assessment of software methods for estimating protein-protein relative binding affinities.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Investigating the effects of missense mutations on the dual Ras/Rap activation mechanism of SYNGAP1 using molecular modelling.Journal of structural biology: X · 2026Article
- Article
- Exploring the ability of the MD+FoldX method to predict SARS-CoV-2 antibody escape mutations using large-scale data.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Atomistic simulations reveal impacts of missense mutations on the structure and function of SynGAP1.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2024Article
- Fast, accurate ranking of engineered proteins by target-binding propensity using structure modeling.Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy · 2024Article
- Exploring the ability of the MD+FoldX method to predict SARS-CoV-2 antibody escape mutations using large-scale data.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Ensemble-Based Mutational Profiling and Network Analysis of the SARS-CoV-2 Spike Omicron XBB Lineages for Interactions with the ACE2 Receptor and Antibodies: Cooperation of Binding Hotspots in Mediating Epistatic Couplings Underlies Binding Mechanism and Immune Escape.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- AlphaFold2-Enabled Atomistic Modeling of Structure, Conformational Ensembles, and Binding Energetics of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.2.86 Spike Protein with ACE2 Host Receptor and Antibodies: Compensatory Functional Effects of Binding Hotspots in Modulating Mechanisms of Receptor Binding and Immune Escape.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2024Article
- Software for Predicting Binding Free Energy of Protein-Protein Complexes and Their Mutants.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2024Article
- Statistical modeling to quantify the uncertainty of FoldX-predicted protein folding and binding stability.BMC bioinformatics · 2023Article
- Little Brown Bats (Viruses · 2023Article
- An optimized thermodynamics integration protocol for identifying beneficial mutations in antibody design.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Article
- The effect of mutations on binding interactions between the SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding domain and neutralizing antibodies B38 and CB6.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Defining the HIV Capsid Binding Site of Nucleoporin 153.mSphere · 2022Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
A growing number of computational tools have been developed to accurately and rapidly predict the impact of amino acid mutations on protein-protein relative binding affinities. Such tools have many applications, for example, designing new drugs and studying evolutionary mechanisms. In the search for accuracy, many of these methods employ expensive yet rigorous molecular dynamics simulations. By contrast, non-rigorous methods use less exhaustive statistical mechanics, allowing for more efficient calculations. However, it is unclear if such methods retain enough accuracy to replace rigorous methods in binding affinity calculations. This trade-off between accuracy and computational expense makes it difficult to determine the best method for a particular system or study. Here, eight non-rigorous computational methods were assessed using eight antibody-antigen and eight non-antibody-antigen complexes for their ability to accurately predict relative binding affinities (ΔΔG) for 654 single mutations. In addition to assessing accuracy, we analyzed the CPU cost and performance for each method using a variety of physico-chemical structural features. This allowed us to posit scenarios in which each method may be best utilized. Most methods performed worse when applied to antibody-antigen complexes compared to non-antibody-antigen complexes. Rosetta-based JayZ and EasyE methods classified mutations as destabilizing (ΔΔG < -0.5 kcal/mol) with high (83-98%) accuracy and a relatively low computational cost for non-antibody-antigen complexes. Some of the most accurate results for antibody-antigen systems came from combining molecular dynamics with FoldX with a correlation coefficient (r) of 0.46, but this was also the most computationally expensive method. Overall, our results suggest these methods can be used to quickly and accurately predict stabilizing versus destabilizing mutations but are less accurate at predicting actual binding affinities. This study highlights the need for continued development of reliable, accessible, and reproducible methods for predicting binding affinities in antibody-antigen proteins and provides a recipe for using current methods.
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.