|
Complex
|
Protein-protein interface size (atoms)
|
Method
|
Percentage of interface identified as pocket
|
|---|
| | | |
apo
structure
|
Provar Score > 0.75
|
Provar score > 0.25
|
|
Bcl-X
L
| |
PASS
|
28
|
16
|
42
|
|
+
|
74
|
LIGSITE
|
66
|
39
|
83
|
|
Bak
| |
fpocket
|
41
|
20
|
50
|
|
MDM2
| |
PASS
|
27
|
11
|
45
|
|
+
|
193
|
LIGSITE
|
41
|
30
|
74
|
|
p53
| |
fpocket
|
31
|
8
|
46
|
|
XiapBir3
| |
PASS
|
30
|
9
|
55
|
|
+
|
128
|
LIGSITE
|
42
|
35
|
83
|
|
Caspase 9
| |
fpocket
|
19
|
13
|
59
|
|
XiapBir3
| |
PASS
|
17
|
0
|
43
|
|
+
|
42
|
LIGSITE
|
21
|
17
|
81
|
|
SMAD
| |
fpocket
|
21
|
0
|
65
|
|
ZipA
| |
PASS
|
54
|
13
|
65
|
|
+
|
63
|
LIGSITE
|
44
|
19
|
57
|
|
FtsZ
| |
fpocket
|
10
|
2
|
19
|
|
HPVE2
| |
PASS
|
42
|
22
|
51
|
|
+
|
109
|
LIGSITE
|
44
|
22
|
58
|
|
HPVE1
| |
fpocket
|
17
|
3
|
32
|
|
IL2
| |
PASS
|
30
|
5
|
55
|
|
+
|
103
|
LIGSITE
|
20
|
17
|
57
|
|
IL2-R
| |
fpocket
|
4
|
1
|
19
|
|
Integrase
| |
PASS
|
42
|
42
|
64
|
|
+
|
33
|
LIGSITE
|
45
|
18
|
48
|
|
LEDGF
| |
fpocket
|
52
|
3
|
51
|
|
TNFa
| |
PASS
|
23
|
9
|
44
|
|
trimer
|
189
|
LIGSITE
|
34
|
18
|
63
|
|
interface
| |
fpocket
|
15
|
3
|
31
|
|
TNFR1a
| |
PASS
|
24
|
5
|
34
|
|
+
|
41
|
LIGSITE
|
46
|
10
|
71
|
|
TNFb
| |
fpocket
|
0
|
0
|
34
|
|
MDM4
| |
PASS
|
55
|
24
|
48
|
|
+
|
71
|
LIGSITE
|
38
|
32
|
52
|
|
p53
| |
fpocket
|
44
|
0
|
47
|
| | |
PASS
|
34
|
14
|
49.5
|
|
Mean Values
|
95
|
LIGSITE
|
40.5
|
23.5
|
66
|
| | |
fpocket
|
23
|
5
|
41
|
- Provar analysis of a tCONCOORD generated ensemble of 250 structures of the apo form of each of the 11 first-named proteins in the complex. The proportion of protein interface atoms found to be persistently or variably lining pockets is, on average, significantly greater than for the protein as a whole. However, this enhanced variability is small and only found to be significant for 14/33 individual analyses. (Italic number in final column indicates the cases in which the proportion is notsignificantly greater at the p < 0.05 level).
