Literature DB >> 15534704

Predicting protein-ligand binding affinities: a low scoring game?

Philip M Marsden1, Dushyanthan Puvanendrampillai, John B O Mitchell, Robert C Glen.   

Abstract

We have investigated the performance of five well known scoring functions in predicting the binding affinities of a diverse set of 205 protein-ligand complexes with known experimental binding constants, and also on subsets of mutually similar complexes. We have found that the overall performance of the scoring functions on the diverse set is disappointing, with none of the functions achieving r(2) values above 0.32 on the whole dataset. Performance on the subsets was mixed, with four of the five functions predicting fairly well the binding affinities of 35 proteinases, but none of the functions producing any useful correlation on a set of 38 aspartic proteinases. We consider two algorithms for producing consensus scoring functions, one based on a linear combination of scores from the five individual functions and the other on averaging the rankings produced by the five functions. We find that both algorithms produce consensus functions that generally perform slightly better than the best individual scoring function on a given dataset.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15534704     DOI: 10.1039/B409570G

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Org Biomol Chem        ISSN: 1477-0520            Impact factor:   3.876


  9 in total

1.  Improving scoring-docking-screening powers of protein-ligand scoring functions using random forest.

Authors:  Cheng Wang; Yingkai Zhang
Journal:  J Comput Chem       Date:  2016-11-17       Impact factor: 3.376

2.  Assessing protein-ligand interaction scoring functions with the CASF-2013 benchmark.

Authors:  Yan Li; Minyi Su; Zhihai Liu; Jie Li; Jie Liu; Li Han; Renxiao Wang
Journal:  Nat Protoc       Date:  2018-03-08       Impact factor: 13.491

3.  Incorporating Explicit Water Molecules and Ligand Conformation Stability in Machine-Learning Scoring Functions.

Authors:  Jianing Lu; Xuben Hou; Cheng Wang; Yingkai Zhang
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2019-10-31       Impact factor: 4.956

4.  Biophysical limits of protein-ligand binding.

Authors:  Richard D Smith; Alaina L Engdahl; James B Dunbar; Heather A Carlson
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2012-07-18       Impact factor: 4.956

5.  An effective docking strategy for virtual screening based on multi-objective optimization algorithm.

Authors:  Honglin Li; Hailei Zhang; Mingyue Zheng; Jie Luo; Ling Kang; Xiaofeng Liu; Xicheng Wang; Hualiang Jiang
Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics       Date:  2009-02-11       Impact factor: 3.169

6.  A knowledge-guided strategy for improving the accuracy of scoring functions in binding affinity prediction.

Authors:  Tiejun Cheng; Zhihai Liu; Renxiao Wang
Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics       Date:  2010-04-17       Impact factor: 3.169

7.  Inhibition of bacterial virulence: drug-like molecules targeting the Salmonella enterica PhoP response regulator.

Authors:  Yat T Tang; Rong Gao; James J Havranek; Eduardo A Groisman; Ann M Stock; Garland R Marshall
Journal:  Chem Biol Drug Des       Date:  2012-03-21       Impact factor: 2.817

8.  Scoring functions and enrichment: a case study on Hsp90.

Authors:  Chrysi Konstantinou-Kirtay; John B O Mitchell; James A Lumley
Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics       Date:  2007-01-26       Impact factor: 3.169

Review 9.  Computational methods in drug discovery.

Authors:  Sumudu P Leelananda; Steffen Lindert
Journal:  Beilstein J Org Chem       Date:  2016-12-12       Impact factor: 2.883

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.