Figure - PMC

Skip to main content

View full-text article in PMC

. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Jun 17.

Published in final edited form as: Proteomics. 2009 Apr;9(7):1744–1753. doi: 10.1002/pmic.200800425

Figure 1. — Relationship between the number of interacting partners (specificity/promiscuity) and binding energy per residue (affinity).

A) Binding energy per residue in binding sites averaged for different number of partners in binding sites. There is a clear tendency for the binding affinities to become weaker as the number of interacting partners of binding sites increases.

B) Z-score frequency distribution of the correlation coefficients of 500 randomizations of the binding energies. In our dataset, the observed tendency, marked with a black triangle, has a statistically significant z-score = −2.17(p-value = 1.50 × 10⁻²).

Figure 1. — Relationship between the number of interacting partners (specificity/promiscuity) and binding energy per residue (affinity).

A) Binding energy per residue in binding sites averaged for different number of partners in binding sites. There is a clear tendency for the binding affinities to become weaker as the number of interacting partners of binding sites increases.

B) Z-score frequency distribution of the correlation coefficients of 500 randomizations of the binding energies. In our dataset, the observed tendency, marked with a black triangle, has a statistically significant z-score = −2.17(p-value = 1.50 × 10⁻²).