
doi: 10.1002/prot.21391
pmid: 17397060
AbstractMolecular Dynamics (MD) simulations have been performed on a set of rigid‐body docking poses, carried out over 25 protein–protein complexes. The results show that fully flexible relaxation increases the fraction of native contacts (NC) by up to 70% for certain docking poses. The largest increase in the fraction of NC is observed for docking poses where anchor residues are able to sample their bound conformation. For each MD simulation, structural snap‐shots were clustered and the centre of each cluster used as the MD‐relaxed docking pose. A comparison between two energy‐based scoring schemes, the first calculated for the MD‐relaxed poses, the second for energy minimized poses, shows that the former are better in ranking complexes with large hydrophobic interfaces. Furthermore, complexes with large interfaces are generally ranked well, regardless of the type of relaxation method chosen, whereas complexes with small hydrophobic interfaces remain difficult to rank. In general, the results indicate that current force‐fields are able to correctly describe direct intermolecular interactions between receptor and ligand molecules. However, these force‐fields still fail in cases where protein–protein complexes are stabilized by subtle energy contributions. Proteins 2007. © 2007 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.
Multiprotein Complexes, Protein Interaction Mapping, Computational Biology, Proteins, Computer Simulation, Ligands, Protein Binding
Multiprotein Complexes, Protein Interaction Mapping, Computational Biology, Proteins, Computer Simulation, Ligands, Protein Binding
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 41 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
