2016
DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btw514
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

PRODIGY: a web server for predicting the binding affinity of protein–protein complexes

Abstract: PRODIGY is freely available at: http://milou.science.uu.nl/services/PRODIGY CONTACT: a.m.j.j.bonvin@uu.nl, a.vangone@uu.nl.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

13
724
0
4

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 904 publications
(843 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
13
724
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…The docking was performed using the structures of T7L obtained from the previous step at different pH strengths and T7RNAP from our earlier work (Borkotoky S, Meena CK, Bhalerao GM, Murali A.: An in-silico glimpse into the pH dependent structural changes of T7 RNA polymerase: a protein with simplicity, Manuscript Submitted). The best-docked complexes were selected based on internal energy complex and binding energy from HADDOCK energies and binding affinities ΔG (kcal/mol) and dissociation constants K d (M) calculated from PRODIGY server [30]. This method uses a simple but robust descriptor of binding affinity based only on structural properties of a protein–protein complex (a combination of the number of contacts at the interface of a protein–protein complex and on properties of the non-interacting surface).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The docking was performed using the structures of T7L obtained from the previous step at different pH strengths and T7RNAP from our earlier work (Borkotoky S, Meena CK, Bhalerao GM, Murali A.: An in-silico glimpse into the pH dependent structural changes of T7 RNA polymerase: a protein with simplicity, Manuscript Submitted). The best-docked complexes were selected based on internal energy complex and binding energy from HADDOCK energies and binding affinities ΔG (kcal/mol) and dissociation constants K d (M) calculated from PRODIGY server [30]. This method uses a simple but robust descriptor of binding affinity based only on structural properties of a protein–protein complex (a combination of the number of contacts at the interface of a protein–protein complex and on properties of the non-interacting surface).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…When nine unique scoring functions developed for docking programs or web servers were tested on a benchmark of 81 protein complexes, correlations between scores and binding affinities were low or nonexistent ( r ranging from −0.18 to 0.32) . More recent studies utilizing supervised learning methods have increased correlations between predicted and experimental affinities, and there is still room for improvement . Prediction of changes in binding energy due to point mutations has seen greater success.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Modeled HCPs were docked with mAb using ClusPro 2.0 server and best docked pose as per ClusPro scoring was examined to study protein–protein interaction. Binding affinity of these complexes were calculated using PRODIGY server and the estimated Δ G and K D values for 10 HCP‐mAb complexes are shown in Figure a.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%