↓ Skip to main content

Finding correct protein–protein docking models using ProQDock

Overview of attention for article published in Bioinformatics, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Finding correct protein–protein docking models using ProQDock
Published in
Bioinformatics, June 2016
DOI 10.1093/bioinformatics/btw257
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sankar Basu, Björn Wallner

Abstract

Protein-protein interactions are a key in virtually all biological processes. For a detailed understanding of the biological processes, the structure of the protein complex is essential. Given the current experimental techniques for structure determination, the vast majority of all protein complexes will never be solved by experimental techniques. In lack of experimental data, computational docking methods can be used to predict the structure of the protein complex. A common strategy is to generate many alternative docking solutions (atomic models) and then use a scoring function to select the best. The success of the computational docking technique is, to a large degree, dependent on the ability of the scoring function to accurately rank and score the many alternative docking models. Here, we present ProQDock, a scoring function that predicts the absolute quality of docking model measured by a novel protein docking quality score (DockQ). ProQDock uses support vector machines trained to predict the quality of protein docking models using features that can be calculated from the docking model itself. By combining different types of features describing both the protein-protein interface and the overall physical chemistry, it was possible to improve the correlation with DockQ from 0.25 for the best individual feature (electrostatic complementarity) to 0.49 for the final version of ProQDock. ProQDock performed better than the state-of-the-art methods ZRANK and ZRANK2 in terms of correlations, ranking and finding correct models on an independent test set. Finally, we also demonstrate that it is possible to combine ProQDock with ZRANK and ZRANK2 to improve performance even further. http://bioinfo.ifm.liu.se/ProQDock [email protected] Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 2%
France 1 2%
Unknown 42 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 23%
Student > Bachelor 9 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 18%
Student > Master 3 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 7 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 15 34%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 16%
Computer Science 4 9%
Chemistry 3 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 7%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 8 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 June 2016.
All research outputs
#15,169,949
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Bioinformatics
#9,154
of 12,809 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,144
of 364,775 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Bioinformatics
#158
of 210 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,809 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 364,775 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 210 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.