Dataset Information

DockAFM: benchmarking protein structures by docking under AFM topographs.

ABSTRACT: Proteins can adopt a variety of conformations. We present a simple server for scoring the agreement between 3D atomic structures and experimental envelopes obtained by atomic force microscopy. Three different structures of immunoglobulins (IgG) or blood coagulation factor V activated were tested and their agreement with several topographical surfaces was computed. This approach can be used to test structural variability within a family of proteins.DockAFM is available at http://biodev.cea.fr/dockafm.

SUBMITTER: Chaves RC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5994945 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

DockAFM: benchmarking protein structures by docking under AFM topographs.

Chaves Rui C RC Pellequer Jean-Luc JL

Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) 20130926 24

<h4>Unlabelled</h4>Proteins can adopt a variety of conformations. We present a simple server for scoring the agreement between 3D atomic structures and experimental envelopes obtained by atomic force microscopy. Three different structures of immunoglobulins (IgG) or blood coagulation factor V activated were tested and their agreement with several topographical surfaces was computed. This approach can be used to test structural variability within a family of proteins.<h4>Availability and implemen ...[more]

PMID: 24078683

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Molecular docking studies on protein-peptide interactions are a challenging and time-consuming task because peptides are generally more flexible than proteins and tend to adopt numerous conformations. There are several benchmarking studies on protein-protein, protein-ligand and nucleic acid-ligand docking interactions. However, a series of docking methods is not rigorously validated for protein-peptide complexes in the literature. Considering the importance and wide application of peptide docking, we describe benchmarking of 6 docking methods on 133 protein-peptide complexes having peptide length between 9 to 15 residues. The performance of docking methods was evaluated using CAPRI parameters like FNAT, I-RMSD, L-RMSD. RESULT:Firstly, we performed blind docking and evaluate the performance of the top docking pose of each method. It was observed that FRODOCK performed better than other methods with average L-RMSD of 12.46 Å. The performance of all methods improved significantly for their best docking pose and achieved highest average L-RMSD of 3.72 Å in case of FRODOCK. Similarly, we performed re-docking and evaluated the performance of the top and best docking pose of each method. We achieved the best performance in case of ZDOCK with average L-RMSD 8.60 Å and 2.88 Å for the top and best docking pose respectively. Methods were also evaluated on 40 protein-peptide complexes used in the previous benchmarking study, where peptide have length up to 5 residues. In case of best docking pose, we achieved the highest average L-RMSD of 4.45 Å and 2.09 Å for the blind docking using FRODOCK and re-docking using AutoDock Vina respectively. CONCLUSION:The study shows that FRODOCK performed best in case of blind docking and ZDOCK in case of re-docking. There is a need to improve the ranking of docking pose generated by different methods, as the present ranking scheme is not satisfactory. To facilitate the scientific community for calculating CAPRI parameters between native and docked complexes, we developed a web-based service named PPDbench ( http://webs.iiitd.edu.in/raghava/ppdbench/ ).

Project description:RosettaDock has been increasingly used in protein docking and design strategies in order to predict the structure of protein-protein interfaces. Here we test capabilities of RosettaDock 3.2, part of the newly developed Rosetta v3.2 modeling suite, against Docking Benchmark 3.0, and compare it with RosettaDock v2.3, the latest version of the previous Rosetta software package. The benchmark contains a diverse set of 116 docking targets including 22 antibody-antigen complexes, 33 enzyme-inhibitor complexes, and 60 'other' complexes. These targets were further classified by expected docking difficulty into 84 rigid-body targets, 17 medium targets, and 14 difficult targets. We carried out local docking perturbations for each target, using the unbound structures when available, in both RosettaDock v2.3 and v3.2. Overall the performances of RosettaDock v2.3 and v3.2 were similar. RosettaDock v3.2 achieved 56 docking funnels, compared to 49 in v2.3. A breakdown of docking performance by protein complex type shows that RosettaDock v3.2 achieved docking funnels for 63% of antibody-antigen targets, 62% of enzyme-inhibitor targets, and 35% of 'other' targets. In terms of docking difficulty, RosettaDock v3.2 achieved funnels for 58% of rigid-body targets, 30% of medium targets, and 14% of difficult targets. For targets that failed, we carry out additional analyses to identify the cause of failure, which showed that binding-induced backbone conformation changes account for a majority of failures. We also present a bootstrap statistical analysis that quantifies the reliability of the stochastic docking results. Finally, we demonstrate the additional functionality available in RosettaDock v3.2 by incorporating small-molecules and non-protein co-factors in docking of a smaller target set. This study marks the most extensive benchmarking of the RosettaDock module to date and establishes a baseline for future research in protein interface modeling and structure prediction.

Dataset Information

DockAFM: benchmarking protein structures by docking under AFM topographs.

Publications

DockAFM: benchmarking protein structures by docking under AFM topographs.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets