IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0022477.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Benchmarking and Analysis of Protein Docking Performance in Rosetta v3.2

Author

Listed:
  • Sidhartha Chaudhury
  • Monica Berrondo
  • Brian D Weitzner
  • Pravin Muthu
  • Hannah Bergman
  • Jeffrey J Gray

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Sidhartha Chaudhury & Monica Berrondo & Brian D Weitzner & Pravin Muthu & Hannah Bergman & Jeffrey J Gray, 2011. "Benchmarking and Analysis of Protein Docking Performance in Rosetta v3.2," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(8), pages 1-13, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0022477
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0022477
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0022477
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0022477&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0022477?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Almutasem Saleh & Yasunori Noguchi & Ricardo Aramayo & Marina E. Ivanova & Kathryn M. Stevens & Alex Montoya & S. Sunidhi & Nicolas Lopez Carranza & Marcin J. Skwark & Christian Speck, 2022. "The structural basis of Cdc7-Dbf4 kinase dependent targeting and phosphorylation of the MCM2-7 double hexamer," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-20, December.
    2. Kellan P. Weston & Xiaoyi Gao & Jinghan Zhao & Kwang-Soo Kim & Susan E. Maloney & Jill Gotoff & Sumit Parikh & Yen-Chen Leu & Kuen-Phon Wu & Marwan Shinawi & Joshua P. Steimel & Joseph S. Harrison & J, 2021. "Identification of disease-linked hyperactivating mutations in UBE3A through large-scale functional variant analysis," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 12(1), pages 1-15, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0022477. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.