2011
DOI: 10.1002/prot.23094
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

KFC2: A knowledge‐based hot spot prediction method based on interface solvation, atomic density, and plasticity features

Abstract: Hot spots constitute a small fraction of protein-protein interface residues, yet they account for a large fraction of the binding affinity. Based on our previous method (KFC), we present two new methods (KFC2a and KFC2b) that outperform other methods at hot spot prediction. A number of improvements were made in developing these new methods. First, we created a training data set that contained a similar number of hot spot and non-hot spot residues. In addition, we generated 47 different features, and different … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
224
0
2

Year Published

2013
2013
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 214 publications
(229 citation statements)
references
References 50 publications
(81 reference statements)
1
224
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…(C) iNOS FMN subdomain (yellow) and calmodulin (blue) surfaces that interact with the iNOS heme domain in the Rosetta models. For B and C, residues were colored if they were present within the interface in at least two of the three iNOS Rosetta models or for calmodulin in the iNOS-3 model (Table S2) as analyzed using the KFC2 server (27). electron acceptors such as cytochrome c. Second, calmodulin stabilizes the interaction of the FMN subdomain with the heme domain to increase the rate of interdimer electron transfer from FMN to heme.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…(C) iNOS FMN subdomain (yellow) and calmodulin (blue) surfaces that interact with the iNOS heme domain in the Rosetta models. For B and C, residues were colored if they were present within the interface in at least two of the three iNOS Rosetta models or for calmodulin in the iNOS-3 model (Table S2) as analyzed using the KFC2 server (27). electron acceptors such as cytochrome c. Second, calmodulin stabilizes the interaction of the FMN subdomain with the heme domain to increase the rate of interdimer electron transfer from FMN to heme.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For simplicity, only one of the iNOS models is discussed below. To ensure that the iNOS models matched the HDX-MS data, the interfaces determined by HDX-MS were then compared with the interfaces in the models determined using the Knowledge-based FADE and Contacts (KFC2) server (27). The observed HDX-MS interfaces of the heme domain result from: (i) interaction with the FMN subdomain, (ii) interaction with calmodulin, and (iii) stabilization of the heme domain dimer interface (Fig.…”
Section: Computational Modeling Of the Inos Heme Domain And Fmn Subdomentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The binding site of antigen in the antibody was determined by using KFC (Knowledge-based FADE and Contacts) web server [24], [25]. The protein structures of antibodies were visualized with Vega ZZ software then the antigen was cleared from the antibody.…”
Section: Protein Structure Of Antibodiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To evaluate the performance of the proposed PredHS, eight existing hot spot prediction methods, Robetta (Kortemme and Baker, 2002), FOLDEF (Guerois et al, 2002), KFC (Darnell et al, 2007), MINERVA2 (Tuncbag et al, 2009), APIS (Xia et al, 2010), KFC2a, and KFC2b (Zhu and Mitchell, 2011) are implemented and evaluated on both Dataset I and Dataset II with 10-fold crossvalidation. The performance of each model is measured by six metrics: accuracy (Accu), sensitivity (Sen), specificity (Spe), precision (Pre), CC, and F1 score.…”
Section: Performance Comparison With the State-of-the-art Approachesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On the other hand, empirical functions or simple physical methods, such as FOLDEF (Guerois et al, 2002) and Robetta (Kortemme and Baker, 2002), which use experimentally calibrated knowledge-based simplified models to evaluate the binding free energy, provide an alternative way to probe hot spots with much less computation. Recently, there has been considerable interest applying machine-learning methods to predict hot spots such as neural networks (Ofran and Rost, 2007), decision trees (Darnell et al, 2007), support vector machines (Cho et al, 2009;Xia et al, 2010;Zhu and Mitchell, 2011), Bayesian networks (Assi et al, 2009), minimum cut trees (Tuncbag et al, 2010), and random forests (Wang et al, 2012).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%