Get access
Advertisement

Assessment of CAPRI predictions in rounds 3–5 shows progress in docking procedures

Authors

  • Raúl Méndez,

    1. Service de Conformation de Macromolécules Biologiques et Bioinformatique, Centre de Biologie Structurale et Bioinformatique, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
    2. Grup Biomatemàtic de Recerca, Institut de Neurociències, Unitat de Bioestadística, Facultat de Medicina, Universitat Autonòma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, Spain
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Raphaël Leplae,

    1. Service de Conformation de Macromolécules Biologiques et Bioinformatique, Centre de Biologie Structurale et Bioinformatique, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Marc F. Lensink,

    1. Service de Conformation de Macromolécules Biologiques et Bioinformatique, Centre de Biologie Structurale et Bioinformatique, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Shoshana J. Wodak

    Corresponding author
    1. Service de Conformation de Macromolécules Biologiques et Bioinformatique, Centre de Biologie Structurale et Bioinformatique, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
    2. Structural Biology Program, Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    • Université Libre de Bruxelles, Service de Conformation de Macromolecules Biologique et Bioinformatique, Centre de Biologie Structurale et Bioinformatique, Campus Plaine-BC6, Bd. du Triomphe-CP263, Brussels 1050, Belgium
    Search for more papers by this author

Abstract

The current status of docking procedures for predicting protein–protein interactions starting from their three-dimensional (3D) structure is reassessed by evaluating blind predictions, performed during 2003–2004 as part of Rounds 3–5 of the community-wide experiment on Critical Assessment of PRedicted Interactions (CAPRI). Ten newly determined structures of protein–protein complexes were used as targets for these rounds. They comprised 2 enzyme–inhibitor complexes, 2 antigen–antibody complexes, 2 complexes involved in cellular signaling, 2 homo-oligomers, and a complex between 2 components of the bacterial cellulosome. For most targets, the predictors were given the experimental structures of 1 unbound and 1 bound component, with the latter in a random orientation. For some, the structure of the free component was derived from that of a related protein, requiring the use of homology modeling. In some of the targets, significant differences in conformation were displayed between the bound and unbound components, representing a major challenge for the docking procedures. For 1 target, predictions could not go to completion. In total, 1866 predictions submitted by 30 groups were evaluated. Over one-third of these groups applied completely novel docking algorithms and scoring functions, with several of them specifically addressing the challenge of dealing with side-chain and backbone flexibility. The quality of the predicted interactions was evaluated by comparison to the experimental structures of the targets, made available for the evaluation, using the well-agreed-upon criteria used previously. Twenty-four groups, which for the first time included an automatic Web server, produced predictions ranking from acceptable to highly accurate for all targets, including those where the structures of the bound and unbound forms differed substantially. These results and a brief survey of the methods used by participants of CAPRI Rounds 3–5 suggest that genuine progress in the performance of docking methods is being achieved, with CAPRI acting as the catalyst. Proteins 2005;60:150–169. © 2005 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Get access to the full text of this article

Ancillary