Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2012 Mar 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Struct Biol. 2010 Oct 12;173(3):461–471. doi: 10.1016/j.jsb.2010.09.023

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Use of SAXS information in FoXSDock. Selected Benchmark 1 cases include 1BVN, 1DFJ, 1CGI, 1TMQ, 1E6E, 2O8V in rows one to six, respectively. The plots in the first column display SAXS scores (Χ values on the y-axis) as a function of I-RMSD (x-axis) for all models from the rigid docking stage. The second column plots the SAXS profile fitting score versus RG3D for the same set of complexes. The color-coding reflects the I-RMSD. The black line indicates the RGexp and the grey lines show the thresholds for filtering. The third column shows models with the lowest Χ scores. The native complex is shown in red in all panels. In the first two cases (1BVN and 1DFJ), the near-native model has the lowest Χ score. For 1CGI and 1E6E, the 10 models with the lowest Χ score do not include any near-native models; however, the binding site of the receptor is accurately identified. For 1TMQ and 2O8V, the 10 models with the lowest Χ score define two and three clusters, respectively, due to the symmetry in the receptor.