Literature DB >> 15154752

Assessment of docking poses: interactions-based accuracy classification (IBAC) versus crystal structure deviations.

Romano T Kroemer1, Anna Vulpetti, Joseph J McDonald, Douglas C Rohrer, Jean-Yves Trosset, Fabrizio Giordanetto, Simona Cotesta, Colin McMartin, Mats Kihlén, Pieter F W Stouten.   

Abstract

Six docking programs (FlexX, GOLD, ICM, LigandFit, the Northwestern University version of DOCK, and QXP) were evaluated in terms of their ability to reproduce experimentally observed binding modes (poses) of small-molecule ligands to macromolecular targets. The accuracy of a pose was assessed in two ways: First, the RMS deviation of the predicted pose from the crystal structure was calculated. Second, the predicted pose was compared to the experimentally observed one regarding the presence of key interactions with the protein. The latter assessment is referred to as interactions-based accuracy classification (IBAC). In a number of cases significant discrepancies were found between IBAC and RMSD-based classifications. Despite being more subjective, the IBAC proved to be a more meaningful measure of docking accuracy in all these cases.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15154752     DOI: 10.1021/ci049970m

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Chem Inf Comput Sci        ISSN: 0095-2338


  21 in total

1.  Nucleotide docking: prediction of reactant state complexes for ribonuclease enzymes.

Authors:  Brigitta Elsässer; Gregor Fels
Journal:  J Mol Model       Date:  2010-12-01       Impact factor: 1.810

2.  SimiCon: a web tool for protein-ligand model comparison through calculation of equivalent atomic contacts.

Authors:  Manuel Rueda; Vsevolod Katritch; Eugene Raush; Ruben Abagyan
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2010-09-24       Impact factor: 6.937

3.  Finding a needle in a haystack: development of a combinatorial virtual screening approach for identifying high specificity heparin/heparan sulfate sequence(s).

Authors:  Arjun Raghuraman; Philip D Mosier; Umesh R Desai
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2006-06-15       Impact factor: 7.446

Review 4.  Towards the development of universal, fast and highly accurate docking/scoring methods: a long way to go.

Authors:  N Moitessier; P Englebienne; D Lee; J Lawandi; C R Corbeil
Journal:  Br J Pharmacol       Date:  2007-11-26       Impact factor: 8.739

Review 5.  Evaluation of the performance of 3D virtual screening protocols: RMSD comparisons, enrichment assessments, and decoy selection--what can we learn from earlier mistakes?

Authors:  Johannes Kirchmair; Patrick Markt; Simona Distinto; Gerhard Wolber; Thierry Langer
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2008-01-15       Impact factor: 3.686

6.  Thermodynamic computational approach to capture molecular recognition in the binding of different inhibitors to the DNA gyrase B subunit from Escherichia coli.

Authors:  Liane Saíz-Urra; Miguel Ángel Cabrera Pérez; Matheus Froeyen
Journal:  J Mol Model       Date:  2013-04-30       Impact factor: 1.810

Review 7.  Are predicted protein structures of any value for binding site prediction and virtual ligand screening?

Authors:  Jeffrey Skolnick; Hongyi Zhou; Mu Gao
Journal:  Curr Opin Struct Biol       Date:  2013-02-14       Impact factor: 6.809

8.  Assessing the similarity of ligand binding conformations with the Contact Mode Score.

Authors:  Yun Ding; Ye Fang; Juana Moreno; J Ramanujam; Mark Jarrell; Michal Brylinski
Journal:  Comput Biol Chem       Date:  2016-09-06       Impact factor: 2.877

Review 9.  How to do an evaluation: pitfalls and traps.

Authors:  Paul C D Hawkins; Gregory L Warren; A Geoffrey Skillman; Anthony Nicholls
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2008-01-23       Impact factor: 3.686

10.  Q-Dock(LHM): Low-resolution refinement for ligand comparative modeling.

Authors:  Michal Brylinski; Jeffrey Skolnick
Journal:  J Comput Chem       Date:  2010-04-15       Impact factor: 3.376

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.