Docking and scoring protein interactions: CAPRI 2009
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Protein docking algorithms are assessed by evaluating blind predictions performed during 2007-2009 in Rounds 13-19 of the community-wide experiment on critical assessment of predicted interactions (CAPRI). We evaluated the ability of these algorithms to sample docking poses and to single out specific association modes in 14 targets, representing 11 distinct protein complexes. These complexes play important biological roles in RNA maturation, G-protein signal processing, and enzyme inhibition and function. One target involved protein-RNA interactions not previously considered in CAPRI, several others were hetero-oligomers, or featured multiple interfaces between the same protein pair. For most targets, predictions started from the experimentally determined structures of the free (unbound) components, or from models built from known structures of related or similar proteins. To succeed they therefore needed to account for conformational changes and model inaccuracies. In total, 64 groups and 12 web-servers submitted docking predictions of which 4420 were evaluated. Overall our assessment reveals that 67% of the groups, more than ever before, produced acceptable models or better for at least one target, with many groups submitting multiple high- and medium-accuracy models for two to six targets. Forty-one groups including four web-servers participated in the scoring experiment with 1296 evaluated models. Scoring predictions also show signs of progress evidenced from the large proportion of correct models submitted. But singling out the best models remains a challenge, which also adversely affects the ability to correctly rank docking models. With the increased interest in translating abstract protein interaction networks into realistic models of protein assemblies, the growing CAPRI community is actively developing more efficient and reliable docking and scoring methods for everyone to use.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".