Edit · 2026 05 15 182846 Onlinelibrarywileycom 28sici 291097 0134 281997 291 3c198 Aid Prot26 3e3.0.Co 3b2 I

Saving needs a token. Log in or register to get one. Edits are public and licensed CC-BY-SA-4.0.

# PROTEINS: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics | Protein Science Journal | Wiley Online Journal

**URL:** https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/%28SICI%291097-0134%281997%291+%3C198::AID-PROT26%3E3.0.CO%3B2-I

**Saved:** 2026-05-15T01:28:46.112Z

---

Proteins: Structure, Function, and BioinformaticsVolume 29, Issue S1 pp. 198-204
Research Article
Evaluation of the CASP2 docking section
J. Scott Dixon
First published: 07 December 1998
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0134(1997)1+<198::AID-PROT26>3.0.CO;2-I
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
 VIEW METRICS
PDF
About
 
Abstract

The docking section of CASP2 is reviewed. Seven small molecule ligand–protein targets and one protein–protein target were available for predictions. Many of the small molecule ligand complexes involved serine proteases. Overall results for the small molecule targets were good, with at least one prediction for each target being within 3 Å root-mean-square deviation (RMSD) for nearly all targets and within 2 Å RMSD for over half the targets. However, no single docking method seemed to consistently perform best. In addition, the predictions closest to the experimental results were not always those ranked the highest, pointing out that the evaluation (scoring) of potential solutions is still an area that needs improvement. The protein–protein target proved more difficult. None of the predictions did well in reproducing the geometry of the complex, although in many cases the interacting surfaces of the two proteins were predicted with reasonable accuracy. This target consisted of two large proteins and, therefore was a demanding target for docking methods. Proteins, Suppl. 1:198–204, 1997. © 1998 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

REFERENCES
Citing Literature
Download PDF
 Back

Cancel

Preview · live