MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129414710 · doi:10.1002/prot.20551

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

2005· article· en· W2129414710 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProteins Structure Function and Bioinformatics · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Drug Discovery Methods
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDocking (animal)Computational biologyMacromolecular dockingComputer scienceProtein–ligand dockingSearching the conformational space for dockingProtein structureArtificial intelligenceChemistryVirtual screeningBiologyBiochemistryDrug discoveryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.474
Threshold uncertainty score0.456

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it