Skip to main content
. 2013 May 28;3:1887. doi: 10.1038/srep01887

Figure 2. Success rate comparisons over Testing Set I (a, c, e) and Testing Set II (b, d, f).

Figure 2

(a) and (b) are docking success rates of FTDock, GRAMM and RPDOCK. (c) and (d) are scoring success rates over RPDOCK decoys. Li, DARS-RNP and DECK-RP are compared. For each case, top 1000 structures are generated by RPDOCK and are evaluated by corresponding scoring functions. The ranking result directly by RPDOCK is also shown as a reference. (e) and (f) are protocol success rates of FTDock&Li, GRAMM&DARS-RNP and RPDOCK&DECK_RP. For each case, top 1000 structures are generated by the corresponding docking procedures and are evaluated by the scoring functions.