Fig_7.tif (7.11 MB)
Comparison of specific successes and failures between the RosettaLigand protocols.
figure
posted on 2015-07-24, 03:31 authored by Samuel DeLuca, Karen Khar, Jens MeilerNative structures are in grey, lowest scoring models generated by the Transform/MCM protocol in blue, and lowest scoring models generated by TransRot/MCM in pink. A) A case in which the TransRot/MCM protocol was unsuccessful but the Transform/MCM protocol was successful (PDB ID: 1fhd). B) A case in which the Transform/MCM protocol was unsuccessful but the TransRot/MCM protocol was successful (PDB ID: 2otz). C) A case in which both methods were successful (PDB ID: 1bky). D) A case in which neither method was successful (PDB ID: 1q4w).
History
Usage metrics
Categories
Keywords
Medium Sized Ligand Librariestransformation stepRosettaLigand docking protocolbinding positioncomplexFlexible Docking50 secondsatom refinement stepligand librariesdocking success ratesampling approachmoleculeRosettaLigand RosettaLigandHigh throughput screening10 secondsspeed increaseprotein binding sitedocking mediummodel
Licence
Exports
RefWorks
BibTeX
Ref. manager
Endnote
DataCite
NLM
DC