ArticleProtein science : a publication of the Protein Society2024
A significance score for protein-protein interaction models through random docking.
Article in Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A comparison of antibody-antigen complex sequence-to-structure prediction methods and their systematic biases.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2024Article
- A Comparison of Antibody-Antigen Complex Sequence-to-Structure Prediction Methods and their Systematic Biases.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- A significance score for protein-protein interaction models through random docking.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2024Article
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
Comparing accuracies of structural protein-protein interaction (PPI) models for different complexes on an absolute scale is a challenge, requiring normalization of scores across structures of different sizes and shapes. To help address this challenge, we have developed a statistical significance metric for docking models, called random-docking (RD) p-value. This score evaluates a PPI model based on how likely a random docking process is to produce a model of better or equal accuracy. The binding partners are randomly docked against each other a large number of times, and the probability of sampling a model of equal or greater accuracy from this reference distribution is the RD p-value. Using a subset of top predicted models from CAPRI (Critical Assessment of PRediction of Interactions) rounds over 2017-2020, we find that the ease of achieving a given root mean squared deviation or DOCKQ score varies considerably by target; achieving the same relative metric can be thousands of times easier for one complex compared to another. In contrast, RD p-values inherently normalize scores for models of different complexes, making them globally comparable. Furthermore, one can calculate RD p-values after generating a reference distribution that accounts for prior information about the interface geometry, such as residues involved in binding, by giving the random-docking process access the same information. Thus, one can decouple improvements in prediction accuracy that arise solely from basic modeling constraints from those due to the rest of the method. We provide efficient code for computing RD p-values at https://github.com/Grigoryanlab/RDP.
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.