Literature DB >> 12910460

Improved protein-ligand docking using GOLD.

Marcel L Verdonk1, Jason C Cole, Michael J Hartshorn, Christopher W Murray, Richard D Taylor.   

Abstract

The Chemscore function was implemented as a scoring function for the protein-ligand docking program GOLD, and its performance compared to the original Goldscore function and two consensus docking protocols, "Goldscore-CS" and "Chemscore-GS," in terms of docking accuracy, prediction of binding affinities, and speed. In the "Goldscore-CS" protocol, dockings produced with the Goldscore function are scored and ranked with the Chemscore function; in the "Chemscore-GS" protocol, dockings produced with the Chemscore function are scored and ranked with the Goldscore function. Comparisons were made for a "clean" set of 224 protein-ligand complexes, and for two subsets of this set, one for which the ligands are "drug-like," the other for which they are "fragment-like." For "drug-like" and "fragment-like" ligands, the docking accuracies obtained with Chemscore and Goldscore functions are similar. For larger ligands, Goldscore gives superior results. Docking with the Chemscore function is up to three times faster than docking with the Goldscore function. Both combined docking protocols give significant improvements in docking accuracy over the use of the Goldscore or Chemscore function alone. "Goldscore-CS" gives success rates of up to 81% (top-ranked GOLD solution within 2.0 A of the experimental binding mode) for the "clean list," but at the cost of long search times. For most virtual screening applications, "Chemscore-GS" seems optimal; search settings that give docking speeds of around 0.25-1.3 min/compound have success rates of about 78% for "drug-like" compounds and 85% for "fragment-like" compounds. In terms of producing binding energy estimates, the Goldscore function appears to perform better than the Chemscore function and the two consensus protocols, particularly for faster search settings. Even at docking speeds of around 1-2 min/compound, the Goldscore function predicts binding energies with a standard deviation of approximately 10.5 kJ/mol. Copyright 2003 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12910460     DOI: 10.1002/prot.10465

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proteins        ISSN: 0887-3585


  643 in total

1.  Identification of lead compounds targeting the cathepsin B-like enzyme of Eimeria tenella.

Authors:  Marie Schaeffer; Joerg Schroeder; Anja R Heckeroth; Sandra Noack; Michael Gassel; Jeremy C Mottram; Paul M Selzer; Graham H Coombs
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2011-12-05       Impact factor: 5.191

2.  Are predefined decoy sets of ligand poses able to quantify scoring function accuracy?

Authors:  Oliver Korb; Tim Ten Brink; Fredrick Robin Devadoss Victor Paul Raj; Matthias Keil; Thomas E Exner
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2012-01-10       Impact factor: 3.686

3.  Evaluation of docking performance in a blinded virtual screening of fragment-like trypsin inhibitors.

Authors:  Georgiana Surpateanu; Bogdan I Iorga
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2011-12-17       Impact factor: 3.686

4.  Pose prediction and virtual screening performance of GOLD scoring functions in a standardized test.

Authors:  John W Liebeschuetz; Jason C Cole; Oliver Korb
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2012-02-28       Impact factor: 3.686

5.  Identification of a novel antiviral inhibitor of the flavivirus guanylyltransferase enzyme.

Authors:  Hillary J Stahla-Beek; Daniel G April; Bejan J Saeedi; Amanda M Hannah; Susan M Keenan; Brian J Geiss
Journal:  J Virol       Date:  2012-06-06       Impact factor: 5.103

6.  Chemical space sampling by different scoring functions and crystal structures.

Authors:  Natasja Brooijmans; Christine Humblet
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2010-04-18       Impact factor: 3.686

7.  Use of allostery to identify inhibitors of calmodulin-induced activation of Bacillus anthracis edema factor.

Authors:  Elodie Laine; Christophe Goncalves; Johanna C Karst; Aurélien Lesnard; Sylvain Rault; Wei-Jen Tang; Thérèse E Malliavin; Daniel Ladant; Arnaud Blondel
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2010-06-07       Impact factor: 11.205

8.  Improving inverse docking target identification with Z-score selection.

Authors:  Stephanie S Kim; Melanie L Aprahamian; Steffen Lindert
Journal:  Chem Biol Drug Des       Date:  2019-01-02       Impact factor: 2.817

9.  Flavonoids affect actin functions in cytoplasm and nucleus.

Authors:  Markus Böhl; Simon Tietze; Andrea Sokoll; Sineej Madathil; Frank Pfennig; Joannis Apostolakis; Karim Fahmy; Herwig O Gutzeit
Journal:  Biophys J       Date:  2007-06-15       Impact factor: 4.033

10.  Biochemical and structural analysis of aminoglycoside acetyltransferase Eis from Anabaena variabilis.

Authors:  Rachel E Pricer; Jacob L Houghton; Keith D Green; Abdelrahman S Mayhoub; Sylvie Garneau-Tsodikova
Journal:  Mol Biosyst       Date:  2012-10-30
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.