Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2015 May 3.
Published in final edited form as: Proteins. 2013 Oct 17;82(2):250–267. doi: 10.1002/prot.24370

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Success rates of DockRank and ClusPro scoring functions on the ClusPro2-BM3_31 decoy set plotted against the top m conformations. The x-axis is plotted on a logarithmic scale to emphasize the region of top ranks. ClusPro scoring functions (default cluster-size based, center energy-based, lowest energy-based) were applied on the original docked conformations (109 docked conformations per docking case) generated by ClusPro's underlying docking program, PIPER. DockRank was applied on the docked conformations (30 of the 109 docked conformations per case) output by ClusPro scoring functions. The success rate of DockRank's scoring function supplied with partner-specific interface-based ranking (gray-dashed line) is also plotted to show the upper bound of the success rate of DockRank's scoring function. Studied here are 31 cases for which ClusPro 2.0 is able to return at least one hit (a docked conformation with L–RMSD 10Å) and for which PSHomPPI is able to return interface predictions. We limited m (the number of top ranked conformations) to 9, since ClusPro returned only nine conformations for one of the docking cases, 1PPE.