ArticleProteins2021
Assessing the binding properties of CASP14 targets and models.
Article in Proteins, 2021. 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.
- Improved prediction of MHC-peptide binding using protein language models.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2023Article
- FTMove: A Web Server for Detection and Analysis of Cryptic and Allosteric Binding Sites by Mapping Multiple Protein Structures.Journal of molecular biology · 2022Article
- Elucidation of protein function using computational docking and hotspot analysis by ClusPro and FTMap.Acta crystallographica. Section D, Structural biology · 2022Article
- Structure-conditioned amino-acid couplings: How contact geometry affects pairwise sequence preferences.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2022Article
- 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
An important question is how well the models submitted to CASP retain the properties of target structures. We investigate several properties related to binding. First we explore the binding of small molecules as probes, and count the number of interactions between each residue and such probes, resulting in a binding fingerprint. The similarity between two fingerprints, one for the X-ray structure and the other for a model, is determined by calculating their correlation coefficient. The fingerprint similarity weakly correlates with global measures of accuracy, and GDT_TS higher than 80 is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the conservation of surface binding properties. The advantage of this approach is that it can be carried out without information on potential ligands and their binding sites. The latter information was available for a few targets, and we explored whether the CASP14 models can be used to predict binding sites and to dock small ligands. Finally, we tested the ability of models to reproduce protein-protein interactions by docking both the X-ray structures and the models to their interaction partners in complexes. The analysis showed that in CASP14 the quality of individual domain models is approaching that offered by X-ray crystallography, and hence such models can be successfully used for the identification of binding and regulatory sites, as well as for assembling obligatory protein-protein complexes. Success of ligand docking, however, often depends on fine details of the binding interface, and thus may require accounting for conformational changes by simulation 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.