Sign in or Join FriendFeed
FriendFeed is the easiest way to share online. Learn more »
ISMB
LBR11: Mark Wass - Towards the prediction of protein interaction partners using physical docking
1-10% of protein-protein interactions have been identified. Need for prediction. - Roland Krause
Most methods for prediction are genomic or sequence based but not structure based. - Roland Krause
Protein docking: finding and scoring interaction poses between two proteins. Hard problem to distinguish interactors from non-interactors. Use of the Weng benchmark set of 65 complexes. Measure distribution of scores. - Roland Krause
Build decoy set and assume they are not interacting with the benchmark set. Some examples show separation but fails for several. 36 complexes outperform rank better than the 80%. - Roland Krause
Where on the interactors are docking solutions generated? Some AA are involved more frequently than others. - Roland Krause
Still way to go before predictions are possible but a signal is present. - Roland Krause
The problem with methods that try to optimize discrimination between natives and a set of decoys is that they usually find problems in the docking software / energy function. I.e. you'll discover that decoys have very weird electrostatics distribution etc... A good set of non-interactors would be key to develop this field further - Nir London
scoring is indeed a bottleneck in docking. however there is a signal found in this work, it can be very helpful both for docking and prediction of interactions to understand where this signal comes from. - Dina Schneidman