Protein-ligand binding site recognition using complementary binding-specific substructure comparison and sequence profile alignment
Bioinformatics, ISSN: 1367-4803, Vol: 29, Issue: 20, Page: 2588-2595
2013
- 767Citations
- 722Captures
- 4Mentions
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations767
- Citation Indexes767
- 767
- CrossRef585
- Captures722
- Readers722
- 722
- Mentions4
- References4
- Wikipedia4
Article Description
Motivation: Identification of protein-ligand binding sites is critical to protein function annotation and drug discovery. However, there is no method that could generate optimal binding site prediction for different protein types. Combination of complementary predictions is probably the most reliable solution to the problem. Results: We develop two new methods, one based on binding-specific substructure comparison (TM-SITE) and another on sequence profile alignment (S-SITE), for complementary binding site predictions. The methods are tested on a set of 500 non-redundant proteins harboring 814 natural, drug-like and metal ion molecules. Starting from low-resolution protein structure predictions, the methods successfully recognize451% of binding residues with average Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) significantly higher (with P-value 510-9 in student t-test) than other state-of-the-art methods, including COFACTOR, FINDSITE and ConCavity. When combining TM-SITE and S-SITE with other structure-based programs, a consensus approach (COACH) can increase MCC by 15% over the best individual predictions. COACH was examined in the recent community-wide COMEO experiment and consistently ranked as the best method in last 22 individual datasets with the Area Under the Curve score 22.5% higher than the second best method. These data demonstrate a new robust approach to protein-ligand binding site recognition, which is ready for genome-wide structure-based function annotations. Availability: http://zhanglab.ccmb.med. umich.edu/COACH/Contact: zhng@umich.edu Supplementary information: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online. © The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University Press.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84885655034&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btt447; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23975762; https://academic.oup.com/bioinformatics/article/29/20/2588/277910; https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btt447; https://academic.oup.com/bioinformatics/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/bioinformatics/btt447; https://academic.oup.com/bioinformatics/article-pdf/29/20/2588/16918490/btt447.pdf; http://bioinformatics.oxfordjournals.org/content/29/20/2588; http://bioinformatics.oxfordjournals.org/lookup/doi/10.1093/bioinformatics/btt447; http://bioinformatics.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/doi/10.1093/bioinformatics/btt447
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know