Literature DB >> 15554682

An extensive test of 14 scoring functions using the PDBbind refined set of 800 protein-ligand complexes.

Renxiao Wang1, Yipin Lu, Xueliang Fang, Shaomeng Wang.   

Abstract

Fourteen popular scoring functions, i.e., X-Score, DrugScore, five scoring functions in the Sybyl software (D-Score, PMF-Score, G-Score, ChemScore, and F-Score), four scoring functions in the Cerius2 software (LigScore, PLP, PMF, and LUDI), two scoring functions in the GOLD program (GoldScore and ChemScore), and HINT, were tested on the refined set of the PDBbind database, a set of 800 diverse protein-ligand complexes with high-resolution crystal structures and experimentally determined Ki or Kd values. The focus of our study was to assess the ability of these scoring functions to predict binding affinities based on the experimentally determined high-resolution crystal structures of proteins in complex with their ligands. The quantitative correlation between the binding scores produced by each scoring function and the known binding constants of the 800 complexes was computed. X-Score, DrugScore, Sybyl::ChemScore, and Cerius2::PLP provided better correlations than the other scoring functions with standard deviations of 1.8-2.0 log units. These four scoring functions were also found to be robust enough to carry out computation directly on unaltered crystal structures. To examine how well scoring functions predict the binding affinities for ligands bound to the same target protein, the performance of these 14 scoring functions were evaluated on three subsets of protein-ligand complexes from the test set: HIV-1 protease complexes (82 entries), trypsin complexes (45 entries), and carbonic anhydrase II complexes (40 entries). Although the results for the HIV-1 protease subset are less than desirable, several scoring functions are able to satisfactorily predict the binding affinities for the trypsin and the carbonic anhydrase II subsets with standard deviation as low as 1.0 log unit (corresponding to 1.3-1.4 kcal/mol at room temperature). Our results demonstrate the strengths as well as the weaknesses of current scoring functions for binding affinity prediction.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15554682     DOI: 10.1021/ci049733j

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


  51 in total

1.  Improving molecular docking through eHiTS' tunable scoring function.

Authors:  Orr Ravitz; Zsolt Zsoldos; Aniko Simon
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2011-11-11       Impact factor: 3.686

2.  Exhaustive search and solvated interaction energy (SIE) for virtual screening and affinity prediction.

Authors:  Traian Sulea; Hervé Hogues; Enrico O Purisima
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2011-12-25       Impact factor: 3.686

3.  Discrete molecular dynamics distinguishes nativelike binding poses from decoys in difficult targets.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Proctor; Shuangye Yin; Alexander Tropsha; Nikolay V Dokholyan
Journal:  Biophys J       Date:  2012-01-03       Impact factor: 4.033

4.  Molecular docking studies of protein-nucleotide complexes using MOLSDOCK (mutually orthogonal Latin squares DOCK).

Authors:  Shankaran Nehru Viji; Nagarajan Balaji; Namasivayam Gautham
Journal:  J Mol Model       Date:  2012-03-01       Impact factor: 1.810

5.  Design, synthesis, biochemical studies, cellular characterization, and structure-based computational studies of small molecules targeting the urokinase receptor.

Authors:  Fang Wang; W Eric Knabe; Liwei Li; Inha Jo; Timmy Mani; Hartmut Roehm; Kyungsoo Oh; Jing Li; May Khanna; Samy O Meroueh
Journal:  Bioorg Med Chem       Date:  2012-06-12       Impact factor: 3.641

6.  Benchmarking sets for molecular docking.

Authors:  Niu Huang; Brian K Shoichet; John J Irwin
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2006-11-16       Impact factor: 7.446

7.  Motifs for molecular recognition exploiting hydrophobic enclosure in protein-ligand binding.

Authors:  Tom Young; Robert Abel; Byungchan Kim; Bruce J Berne; Richard A Friesner
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2007-01-04       Impact factor: 11.205

8.  Ultrafast de novo docking combining pharmacophores and combinatorics.

Authors:  Marcus Gastreich; Markus Lilienthal; Hans Briem; Holger Claussen
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2007-01-30       Impact factor: 3.686

9.  Absolute Binding Free Energies between T4 Lysozyme and 141 Small Molecules: Calculations Based on Multiple Rigid Receptor Configurations.

Authors:  Bing Xie; Trung Hai Nguyen; David D L Minh
Journal:  J Chem Theory Comput       Date:  2017-05-01       Impact factor: 6.006

10.  Benchmarking methods and data sets for ligand enrichment assessment in virtual screening.

Authors:  Jie Xia; Ermias Lemma Tilahun; Terry-Elinor Reid; Liangren Zhang; Xiang Simon Wang
Journal:  Methods       Date:  2014-12-03       Impact factor: 3.608

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.