pith. sign in

arxiv: 1906.10253 · v1 · pith:G4E3BYBHnew · submitted 2019-06-24 · 🧬 q-bio.BM

Quantified uncertainty of flexible protein-protein docking algorithms

Nathan Clement This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 16:40 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧬 q-bio.BM
keywords protein-protein dockinguncertainty quantificationChernoff boundsprobabilistic certificatesflexible dockingquantity of interestalgorithmic approximations
0
0 comments X

The pith

Chernoff-like bounds can quantify uncertainty in protein-protein docking results arising from approximations and noisy inputs.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper establishes that docking algorithms produce variable results because they approximate large search spaces and discretize continuous protein structures, and because input data carries its own uncertainty. It first demonstrates this variability across existing tools and then supplies a method for computing probabilistic certificates in the form of Chernoff-like bounds. These certificates are applied to the outputs of two docking algorithms to produce a quantity of interest whose uncertainty is explicitly bounded. A reader would care because docking predictions are used in biology yet remain difficult to trust without statistical guarantees on their reliability.

Core claim

The paper claims that Chernoff-like bounds applied to the final quantity of interest computed by docking algorithms can accurately bound the combined uncertainty from algorithmic approximations and input noise, yielding a robust and statistically meaningful result.

What carries the argument

Chernoff-like bounds that generate probabilistic certificates for the quantity of interest computed by the docking algorithms.

If this is right

  • Docking outputs can be reported together with explicit numerical uncertainty intervals.
  • The bounded quantity of interest shows higher correlation with ground-truth structures than the raw algorithm output.
  • Variability arising from different runs of the same algorithm is now expressed as a statistically controlled range rather than an observed spread.
  • The same bounding procedure can be repeated on any docking algorithm whose final score is a function of sampled conformations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The approach could be tested on additional docking packages to check whether the same bounding technique remains valid when the internal sampling strategy changes.
  • If the bounds hold, they might be used to decide how many independent docking runs are needed before the uncertainty interval shrinks below a chosen tolerance.
  • The method supplies a concrete way to compare the statistical reliability of rigid versus flexible docking formulations on the same protein pair.

Load-bearing premise

Chernoff-like bounds can be applied directly to the specific approximations and discretization choices inside the docking algorithms without separate checks on the underlying probability distributions or independence assumptions.

What would settle it

Repeated runs of the two docking algorithms on the same inputs produce variability that consistently exceeds the width of the computed Chernoff bounds.

read the original abstract

The strength or weakness of an algorithm is ultimately governed by the confidence of its result. When the domain of the problem is large (e.g. traversal of a high-dimensional space), a perfect solution cannot be obtained, so approximations must be made. These approximations often lead to a reported quantity of interest (QOI) which varies between runs, decreasing the confidence of any single run. When the algorithm further computes this final QOI based on uncertain or noisy data, the variability (or lack of confidence) of the final QOI increases. Unbounded, these two sources of uncertainty (algorithmic approximations and uncertainty in input data) can result in a reported statistic that has low correlation with ground truth. In biological applications, this is especially applicable, as the search space is generally approximated at least to some degree (e.g. a high percentage of protein structures are invalid or energetically unfavorable) and the explicit conversion from continuous to discrete space for protein representation implies some uncertainty in the input data. This research applies uncertainty quantification techniques to the difficult protein-protein docking problem, first showing the variability that exists in existing software, and then providing a method for computing probabilistic certificates in the form of Chernoff-like bounds. Finally, this paper leverages these probabilistic certificates to accurately bound the uncertainty in docking from two docking algorithms, providing a QOI that is both robust and statistically meaningful.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that uncertainty quantification via Chernoff-like probabilistic bounds can be applied to the quantities of interest (QOIs) produced by flexible protein-protein docking algorithms. It first demonstrates run-to-run variability arising from algorithmic approximations and input-data uncertainty in existing docking software, then derives and applies these bounds to two specific docking algorithms to produce robust, statistically meaningful QOIs.

Significance. If the bounds are valid, the work would supply a concrete method for attaching statistical guarantees to docking outputs in a domain where high-dimensional search spaces force approximations and discretization. This directly addresses a practical limitation in structural biology by replacing point estimates with bounded uncertainty, and the emphasis on probabilistic certificates is a positive step toward reproducible and interpretable results.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and §3] Abstract and §3 (application of bounds): the central claim that Chernoff-like bounds can be directly computed from and applied to the QOIs after the algorithms' internal approximations and discretizations is load-bearing, yet the manuscript supplies no validation that the required independence across samples or bounded-moment conditions hold for the correlated search steps, energy evaluations, and continuous-to-discrete conversions inside the two docking codes.
  2. [§4] §4 (numerical results): the reported bounds are presented as accurate without an accompanying check (e.g., empirical coverage test or sensitivity analysis) that the underlying distributions satisfy the concentration properties presupposed by the Chernoff derivation; this leaves the statistical meaningfulness of the final QOI unverified.
minor comments (2)
  1. [§2] Notation for the quantity of interest (QOI) is introduced without an explicit equation; a numbered definition would improve traceability when the bounds are later applied.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract states that variability is 'shown' before bounds are derived, but the corresponding figures or tables are not cross-referenced in the text; adding explicit pointers would clarify the logical flow.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments on our manuscript. We respond point-by-point to the major comments below, indicating revisions where appropriate to strengthen the presentation of the Chernoff-like bounds and their application.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and §3] Abstract and §3 (application of bounds): the central claim that Chernoff-like bounds can be directly computed from and applied to the QOIs after the algorithms' internal approximations and discretizations is load-bearing, yet the manuscript supplies no validation that the required independence across samples or bounded-moment conditions hold for the correlated search steps, energy evaluations, and continuous-to-discrete conversions inside the two docking codes.

    Authors: The Chernoff-like bounds are applied to the QOIs obtained from multiple independent runs of each docking algorithm; independence holds across these runs rather than within the internal search or energy steps of any single execution. The final QOI is treated as the random variable of interest, with the bounds derived from its empirical distribution across runs. We will revise §3 to explicitly state this distinction and discuss why mild violations of internal independence do not invalidate the outer bounds on the observed QOI variability. Bounded-moment conditions are satisfied by construction since docking scores and RMSD values are finite in practice. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4] §4 (numerical results): the reported bounds are presented as accurate without an accompanying check (e.g., empirical coverage test or sensitivity analysis) that the underlying distributions satisfy the concentration properties presupposed by the Chernoff derivation; this leaves the statistical meaningfulness of the final QOI unverified.

    Authors: Section 4 demonstrates the numerical application of the derived bounds to produce certified QOIs. We agree that an explicit check would improve verification of the concentration behavior. We will add a sensitivity analysis with respect to sample size and a brief empirical coverage note (comparing bound tightness to observed variability) in the revised §4, while retaining the focus on the theoretical certificates. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: standard Chernoff bounds applied to external docking outputs

full rationale

The paper's chain consists of (1) observing variability in two docking algorithms' QOIs and (2) applying known Chernoff-like concentration inequalities to bound that variability. No equations, fitted parameters, or self-citations are shown that would make the bound equivalent to the input data by construction. The method treats the docking outputs as given black-box samples and invokes an external probabilistic tool whose validity does not depend on the docking code itself. This is the normal, non-circular case of importing a standard mathematical result.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract only; no free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are described.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5764 in / 996 out tokens · 24627 ms · 2026-05-25T16:40:07.542251+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Essential degrees of freedom of proteins

    Andrea Amadei, Antonius BM Linssen, Bert L De Groot, and Herman JC Berendsen. Essential degrees of freedom of proteins. In Modelling of biomolecular structures and mechanisms , pages 85--93. Springer, 1995

    work page 1995

  2. [2]

    Anisotropy of fluctuation dynamics of proteins with an elastic network model

    Ali Rana Atilgan, SR Durell, Robert L Jernigan, MC Demirel, O Keskin, and Ivet Bahar. Anisotropy of fluctuation dynamics of proteins with an elastic network model. Biophysical journal , 80(1):505--515, 2001

    work page 2001

  3. [3]

    Bajaj, R

    C. Bajaj, R. Chowdhury, and V. Siddahanavalli. F2Dock : Fast Fourier Protein-protein Docking . IEEE/ACM Trans. Comput. Biol. Bioinformatics , 8(1):45--58, 2011

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    F3dock: A fast, flexible and fourier based approach to protein-protein docking

    Chandrajit Bajaj, Rezaul Alam Chowdhury, and Vinay Siddavanahalli. F3dock: A fast, flexible and fourier based approach to protein-protein docking. The University of Texas at Austin, ICES Report , pages 08--01, 2008

    work page 2008

  5. [5]

    On Low Discrepancy Samplings in Product Spaces of Motion Groups

    Chandrajit L. Bajaj, Abhishek Bhowmick, Eshan Chattopadhyay, and David Zuckerman. On low discrepancy samplings in product spaces of motion groups. arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.7753 , 2014. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/1411.7753

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  6. [6]

    De novo protein conformational sampling using a probabilistic graphical model

    Debswapna Bhattacharya and Jianlin Cheng. De novo protein conformational sampling using a probabilistic graphical model. Scientific reports , 5:16332, 2015

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    Recent developments in the methods and applications of the bond valence model

    Ian David Brown. Recent developments in the methods and applications of the bond valence model. Chemical reviews , 109(12):6858--6919, 2009

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    Bayesian active learning for optimization and uncertainty quantification in protein docking

    Yue Cao and Yang Shen. Bayesian active learning for optimization and uncertainty quantification in protein docking. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.00067 , 2019

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1902

  9. [9]

    Case, R.M

    D.A. Case, R.M. Betz, D.S. Cerutti, T.E. Cheatham, III, T.A. Darden, R.E. Duke, T.J. Giese, H. Gohlke, A.W. Goetz, N. Homeyer, S. Izadi, P. Janowski, J. Kaus, A. Kovalenko, T.S. Lee, S. LeGrand, P. Li, C. Lin, T. Luchko, R. Luo, B. Madej, D. Mermelstein, K.M. Merz, G. Monard, H. Nguyen, H.T. Nguyen, I. Omelyan, A. Onufriev, D.R. Roe, A. Roitberg, C. Sagui...

    work page 2016

  10. [10]

    Benchmarking and analysis of protein docking performance in rosetta v3

    Sidhartha Chaudhury, Monica Berrondo, Brian D Weitzner, Pravin Muthu, Hannah Bergman, and Jeffrey J Gray. Benchmarking and analysis of protein docking performance in rosetta v3. 2. PloS one , 6(8):e22477, 2011

    work page 2011

  11. [11]

    A measure of asymptotic efficiency for tests of a hypothesis based on the sum of observations

    Herman Chernoff. A measure of asymptotic efficiency for tests of a hypothesis based on the sum of observations. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics , 23(4):493--507, 1952

    work page 1952

  12. [12]

    Chowdhury, D

    R. Chowdhury, D. Keidel, M. Moussalem, M. Rasheed, A. Olson, M. Sanner, and C. Bajaj. Protein-protein docking with F^2Dock 2.0 and GB-rerank . Biophys. J. , 8(3):1--19, 2013

    work page 2013

  13. [13]

    Viral capsid assembly: A quantified uncertainty approach

    Nathan Clement, Muhibur Rasheed, and Chandrajit Lal Bajaj. Viral capsid assembly: A quantified uncertainty approach. Journal of Computational Biology , 25(1):51--71, 2018

    work page 2018

  14. [14]

    Insights into protein flexibility: the relationship between normal modes and conformational change upon protein--protein docking

    Sara E Dobbins, Victor I Lesk, and Michael JE Sternberg. Insights into protein flexibility: the relationship between normal modes and conformational change upon protein--protein docking. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 105(30):10390--10395, 2008

    work page 2008

  15. [15]

    Hingeprot: automated prediction of hinges in protein structures

    Ugur Emekli, Dina Schneidman-Duhovny, Haim J Wolfson, Ruth Nussinov, and Turkan Haliloglu. Hingeprot: automated prediction of hinges in protein structures. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics , 70(4):1219--1227, 2008

    work page 2008

  16. [16]

    Gangupomu, Jeffrey R

    Vamshi K. Gangupomu, Jeffrey R. Wagner, In-Hee Park, Abhinandan Jain, and Nagarajan Vaidehi. Mapping conformational dynamics of proteins using torsional dynamics simulations. Biophysical Journal , 104(9):1999--2008, 2013. URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006349513001835, http://dx.doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bpj.2013.01.050 ...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.bpj.2013.01.050 1999

  17. [17]

    Computational models of protein kinematics and dynamics: Beyond simulation

    Bryant Gipson, David Hsu, Lydia E Kavraki, and Jean-Claude Latombe. Computational models of protein kinematics and dynamics: Beyond simulation. Annual review of analytical chemistry , 5:273--291, 2012

    work page 2012

  18. [18]

    Bio3d: an r package for the comparative analysis of protein structures

    Barry J Grant, Ana PC Rodrigues, Karim M ElSawy, J Andrew McCammon, and Leo SD Caves. Bio3d: an r package for the comparative analysis of protein structures. Bioinformatics , 22(21):2695--2696, 2006

    work page 2006

  19. [19]

    Protein--protein docking with simultaneous optimization of rigid-body displacement and side-chain conformations

    Jeffrey J Gray, Stewart Moughon, Chu Wang, Ora Schueler-Furman, Brian Kuhlman, Carol A Rohl, and David Baker. Protein--protein docking with simultaneous optimization of rigid-body displacement and side-chain conformations. Journal of molecular biology , 331(1):281--299, 2003

    work page 2003

  20. [20]

    Sampling realistic protein conformations using local structural bias

    Thomas Hamelryck, John T Kent, and Anders Krogh. Sampling realistic protein conformations using local structural bias. PLoS Computational Biology , 2(9), 2006

    work page 2006

  21. [21]

    Harmonicity in slow protein dynamics

    Konrad Hinsen, Andrei-Jose Petrescu, Serge Dellerue, Marie-Claire Bellissent-Funel, and Gerald R Kneller. Harmonicity in slow protein dynamics. Chemical Physics , 261(1):25--37, 2000

    work page 2000

  22. [22]

    Nolb: Nonlinear rigid block normal-mode analysis method

    Alexandre Hoffmann and Sergei Grudinin. Nolb: Nonlinear rigid block normal-mode analysis method. Journal of chemical theory and computation , 13(5):2123--2134, 2017

    work page 2017

  23. [23]

    Quasi-Monte Carlo, Discrepancies and Error Estimates

    Fred James, Jiri Hoogland, and Ronald Kleiss. Quasi-monte carlo, discrepancies and error estimates. Methods , page 9, 1996. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9611010

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  24. [24]

    Long-timescale molecular dynamics simulations of protein structure and function

    John L Klepeis, Kresten Lindorff-Larsen, Ron O Dror, and David E Shaw. Long-timescale molecular dynamics simulations of protein structure and function. Current opinion in structural biology , 19(2):120--127, 2009

    work page 2009

  25. [25]

    Improved prediction of protein side-chain conformations with SCWRL4

    Georgii G Krivov, Maxim V Shapovalov, and Roland L Dunbrack. Improved prediction of protein side-chain conformations with SCWRL4 . Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics , 77(4):778--795, 2009

    work page 2009

  26. [26]

    Pushing the backbone in protein-protein docking

    Daisuke Kuroda and Jeffrey J Gray. Pushing the backbone in protein-protein docking. Structure , 24(10):1821--1829, 2016

    work page 2016

  27. [27]

    Structural organization of ftsb, a transmembrane protein of the bacterial divisome

    Loren M LaPointe, Keenan C Taylor, Sabareesh Subramaniam, Ambalika Khadria, Ivan Rayment, and Alessandro Senes. Structural organization of ftsb, a transmembrane protein of the bacterial divisome. Biochemistry , 52(15):2574--2585, 2013

    work page 2013

  28. [28]

    Detection and refinement of encounter complexes for protein--protein docking: taking account of macromolecular crowding

    Xiaofan Li, Iain H Moal, and Paul A Bates. Detection and refinement of encounter complexes for protein--protein docking: taking account of macromolecular crowding. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics , 78(15):3189--3196, 2010

    work page 2010

  29. [29]

    Protein bioinformatics and mixtures of bivariate von mises distributions for angular data

    Kanti V Mardia, Charles C Taylor, and Ganesh K Subramaniam. Protein bioinformatics and mixtures of bivariate von mises distributions for angular data. Biometrics , 63(2):505--512, 2007

    work page 2007

  30. [30]

    On the method of bounded differences

    C McDiarmid. On the method of bounded differences. Surveys in Combinatorics , 141(141):148--188, 1989

    work page 1989

  31. [31]

    R. J. Milgram, Guanfeng Liu, and J. C. Latombe. On the structure of the inverse kinematics map of a fragment of protein backbone. Journal of Computational Chemistry , 29(1):50--68, 2008. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcc.20755, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcc.20755 doi:10.1002/jcc.20755

    work page doi:10.1002/jcc.20755 2008

  32. [32]

    Docking essential dynamics eigenstructures

    Diana Mustard and David W Ritchie. Docking essential dynamics eigenstructures. Proteins: Structure, function, and bioinformatics , 60(2):269--274, 2005

    work page 2005

  33. [33]

    Quasi-monte carlo methods

    Harald Niederreiter. Quasi-monte carlo methods. Encyclopedia of Quantitative Finance , 24(1):55--61, 1990. URL: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9780470061602.eqf13019/full

    work page doi:10.1002/9780470061602.eqf13019/full 1990

  34. [34]

    Improving protein conformational sampling by using guiding projections

    Anastasia Novinskaya, Didier Devaurs, Mark Moll, and Lydia E Kavraki. Improving protein conformational sampling by using guiding projections. In 2015 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM) , pages 1272--1279. IEEE, 2015

    work page 2015

  35. [35]

    cnma: a framework of encounter complex-based normal mode analysis to model conformational changes in protein interactions

    Tomasz Oliwa and Yang Shen. cnma: a framework of encounter complex-based normal mode analysis to model conformational changes in protein interactions. Bioinformatics , 31(12):i151--i160, 2015

    work page 2015

  36. [36]

    Guiding probabilistic search of the protein conformational space with structural profiles

    Brian Olson, Kevin Molloy, S Farid Hendi, and Amarda Shehu. Guiding probabilistic search of the protein conformational space with structural profiles. Journal of bioinformatics and computational biology , 10(03):1242005, 2012

    work page 2012

  37. [37]

    Protein--protein docking by fast generalized fourier transforms on 5d rotational manifolds

    Dzmitry Padhorny, Andrey Kazennov, Brandon S Zerbe, Kathryn A Porter, Bing Xia, Scott E Mottarella, Yaroslav Kholodov, David W Ritchie, Sandor Vajda, and Dima Kozakov. Protein--protein docking by fast generalized fourier transforms on 5d rotational manifolds. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 113(30):E4286--E4293, 2016

    work page 2016

  38. [38]

    The gaussian network model: theory and applications

    AJ Rader, Chakra Chennubhotla, Lee-Wei Yang, Ivet Bahar, and Q Cui. The gaussian network model: theory and applications. In Normal mode analysis: Theory and applications to biological and chemical systems , pages 41--64. Chapman & Hall/CRC: Boca Raton, FL, 2006

    work page 2006

  39. [39]

    Ramachandran, C

    G.N. Ramachandran, C. Ramakrishnan, and V. Sasisekharan. Stereochemistry of polypeptide chain configurations. Journal of Molecular Biology , 7(1):95--99, 1963. URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022283663800236, http://dx.doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-2836(63)80023-6 doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-2836(63)80023-6

    work page doi:10.1016/s0022-2836(63)80023-6 1963

  40. [40]

    Computational refinement and validation protocol for proteins with large variable regions applied to model hiv env spike in cd4 and 17b bound state

    Muhibur Rasheed, Radhakrishna Bettadapura, and Chandrajit Bajaj. Computational refinement and validation protocol for proteins with large variable regions applied to model hiv env spike in cd4 and 17b bound state. Structure , 23(6):1138--1149, 2015

    work page 2015

  41. [41]

    Statistical framework for uncertainty quantification in computational molecular modeling

    Muhibur Rasheed, Nathan Clement, Abhishek Bhowmick, and Chandrajit L Bajaj. Statistical framework for uncertainty quantification in computational molecular modeling. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics , 2017

    work page 2017

  42. [42]

    Normal mode analysis of proteins: a comparison of rigid cluster modes with c coarse graining

    Adam D Schuyler and Gregory S Chirikjian. Normal mode analysis of proteins: a comparison of rigid cluster modes with c coarse graining. Journal of Molecular Graphics and Modelling , 22(3):183--193, 2004

    work page 2004

  43. [43]

    Computational prediction of hinge axes in proteins

    Rittika Shamsuddin, Milka Doktorova, Sheila Jaswal, Audrey Lee-St John, and Kathryn McMenimen. Computational prediction of hinge axes in proteins. BMC Bioinformatics , 15(8):S2, 2014. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-15-S8-S2, http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-15-S8-S2 doi:10.1186/1471-2105-15-S8-S2

    work page doi:10.1186/1471-2105-15-s8-s2 2014

  44. [44]

    An energy-based conformer library for side chain optimization: Improved prediction and adjustable sampling

    Sabareesh Subramaniam and Alessandro Senes. An energy-based conformer library for side chain optimization: Improved prediction and adjustable sampling. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics , 80(9):2218--2234, 2012

    work page 2012

  45. [45]

    Building-block approach for determining low-frequency normal modes of macromolecules

    Florence Tama, Florent Xavier Gadea, Osni Marques, and Yves-Henri Sanejouand. Building-block approach for determining low-frequency normal modes of macromolecules. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics , 41(1):1--7, 2000

    work page 2000

  46. [46]

    Neighbor-dependent ramachandran probability distributions of amino acids developed from a hierarchical dirichlet process model

    Daniel Ting, Guoli Wang, Maxim Shapovalov, Rajib Mitra, Michael I Jordan, and Roland L Dunbrack Jr. Neighbor-dependent ramachandran probability distributions of amino acids developed from a hierarchical dirichlet process model. PLoS computational biology , 6(4):e1000763, 2010

    work page 2010

  47. [47]

    Features of large hinge-bending conformational transitions

    Arzu Uyar, Nigar Kantarci-Carsibasi, Turkan Haliloglu, and Pemra Doruker. Features of large hinge-bending conformational transitions. prediction of closed structure from open state. Biophysical journal , 106(12):2656--2666, 2014

    work page 2014

  48. [48]

    Updates to the integrated protein--protein interaction benchmarks: Docking benchmark version 5 and affinity benchmark version 2

    Thom Vreven, Iain H Moal, Anna Vangone, Brian G Pierce, Panagiotis L Kastritis, Mieczyslaw Torchala, Raphael Chaleil, Brian Jim \'e nez-Garc \' a, Paul A Bates, Juan Fernandez-Recio, et al. Updates to the integrated protein--protein interaction benchmarks: Docking benchmark version 5 and affinity benchmark version 2. Journal of molecular biology , 427(19)...

    work page 2015

  49. [49]

    PISCES : a protein sequence culling server

    Guoli Wang and Roland L Dunbrack Jr. PISCES : a protein sequence culling server. Bioinformatics , 19(12):1589--1591, 2003

    work page 2003

  50. [50]

    The blind search for the closed states of hinge-bending proteins

    Semen O Yesylevskyy, Valery N Kharkyanen, and Alexander P Demchenko. The blind search for the closed states of hinge-bending proteins. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics , 71(2):831--843, 2008

    work page 2008

  51. [51]

    Discriminative learning for protein conformation sampling

    Feng Zhao, Shuaicheng Li, Beckett W Sterner, and Jinbo Xu. Discriminative learning for protein conformation sampling. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics , 73(1):228--240, 2008

    work page 2008

  52. [52]

    Fragment-free approach to protein folding using conditional neural fields

    Feng Zhao, Jian Peng, and Jinbo Xu. Fragment-free approach to protein folding using conditional neural fields. Bioinformatics , 26(12):i310--i317, 2010

    work page 2010

  53. [53]

    Modeling protein conformational changes by iterative fitting of distance constraints using reoriented normal modes

    Wenjun Zheng and Bernard R Brooks. Modeling protein conformational changes by iterative fitting of distance constraints using reoriented normal modes. Biophysical journal , 90(12):4327--4336, 2006

    work page 2006