Literature DB >> 15916423

Decoys for docking.

Alan P Graves1, Ruth Brenk, Brian K Shoichet.   

Abstract

Molecular docking is widely used to predict novel lead compounds for drug discovery. Success depends on the quality of the docking scoring function, among other factors. An imperfect scoring function can mislead by predicting incorrect ligand geometries or by selecting nonbinding molecules over true ligands. These false-positive hits may be considered "decoys". Although these decoys are frustrating, they potentially provide important tests for a docking algorithm; the more subtle the decoy, the more rigorous the test. Indeed, decoy databases have been used to improve protein structure prediction algorithms and protein-protein docking algorithms. Here, we describe 20 geometric decoys in five enzymes and 166 "hit list" decoys-i.e., molecules predicted to bind by our docking program that were tested and found not to do so-for beta-lactamase and two cavity sites in lysozyme. Especially in the cavity sites, which are very simple, these decoys highlight particular weaknesses in our scoring function. We also consider the performance of five other widely used docking scoring functions against our geometric and hit list decoys. Intriguingly, whereas many of these other scoring functions performed better on the geometric decoys, they typically performed worse on the hit list decoys, often highly ranking molecules that seemed to poorly complement the model sites. Several of these "hits"from the other scoring functions were tested experimentally and found, in fact, to be decoys. Collectively, these decoys provide a tool for the development and improvement of molecular docking scoring functions. Such improvements may, in turn, be rapidly tested experimentally against these and related experimental systems, which are well-behaved in assays and for structure determination.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15916423      PMCID: PMC1557646          DOI: 10.1021/jm0491187

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Chem        ISSN: 0022-2623            Impact factor:   7.446


  56 in total

1.  Ab initio protein structure prediction of CASP III targets using ROSETTA.

Authors:  K T Simons; R Bonneau; I Ruczinski; D Baker
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  1999

2.  Scoring docked conformations generated by rigid-body protein-protein docking.

Authors:  C J Camacho; D W Gatchell; S R Kimura; S Vajda
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2000-08-15

3.  A general and fast scoring function for protein-ligand interactions: a simplified potential approach.

Authors:  I Muegge; Y C Martin
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  1999-03-11       Impact factor: 7.446

4.  Protein-protein docking. Generation and filtering of complexes.

Authors:  M J Sternberg; H A Gabb; R M Jackson; G Moont
Journal:  Methods Mol Biol       Date:  2000

5.  Decoys 'R' Us: a database of incorrect conformations to improve protein structure prediction.

Authors:  R Samudrala; M Levitt
Journal:  Protein Sci       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 6.725

6.  Distance-dependent, pair potential for protein folding: results from linear optimization.

Authors:  D Tobi; R Elber
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2000-10-01

7.  How to generate improved potentials for protein tertiary structure prediction: a lattice model study.

Authors:  T L Chiu; R A Goldstein
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2000-11-01

8.  The discovery of steroids and other novel FKBP inhibitors using a molecular docking program.

Authors:  P Burkhard; U Hommel; M Sanner; M D Walkinshaw
Journal:  J Mol Biol       Date:  1999-04-16       Impact factor: 5.469

9.  Novel inhibitors of DNA gyrase: 3D structure based biased needle screening, hit validation by biophysical methods, and 3D guided optimization. A promising alternative to random screening.

Authors:  H J Boehm; M Boehringer; D Bur; H Gmuender; W Huber; W Klaus; D Kostrewa; H Kuehne; T Luebbers; N Meunier-Keller; F Mueller
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2000-07-13       Impact factor: 7.446

10.  Modelling of factor Xa-inhibitor complexes: a computational flexible docking approach.

Authors:  M S Rao; A J Olson
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  1999-02-01
View more
  40 in total

1.  Electrostatic evaluation of isosteric analogues.

Authors:  Roger Sayle; Anthony Nicholls
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2006-07-15       Impact factor: 3.686

2.  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

3.  On the use of orientational restraints and symmetry corrections in alchemical free energy calculations.

Authors:  David L Mobley; John D Chodera; Ken A Dill
Journal:  J Chem Phys       Date:  2006-08-28       Impact factor: 3.488

4.  Predicting absolute ligand binding free energies to a simple model site.

Authors:  David L Mobley; Alan P Graves; John D Chodera; Andrea C McReynolds; Brian K Shoichet; Ken A Dill
Journal:  J Mol Biol       Date:  2007-06-08       Impact factor: 5.469

5.  Differentiation of AmpC beta-lactamase binders vs. decoys using classification kNN QSAR modeling and application of the QSAR classifier to virtual screening.

Authors:  Jui-Hua Hsieh; Xiang S Wang; Denise Teotico; Alexander Golbraikh; Alexander Tropsha
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2008-03-13       Impact factor: 3.686

6.  Rescoring docking hit lists for model cavity sites: predictions and experimental testing.

Authors:  Alan P Graves; Devleena M Shivakumar; Sarah E Boyce; Matthew P Jacobson; David A Case; Brian K Shoichet
Journal:  J Mol Biol       Date:  2008-01-30       Impact factor: 5.469

Review 7.  Community benchmarks for virtual screening.

Authors:  John J Irwin
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2008-02-14       Impact factor: 3.686

8.  The Development of Target-Specific Pose Filter Ensembles To Boost Ligand Enrichment for Structure-Based Virtual Screening.

Authors:  Jie Xia; Jui-Hua Hsieh; Huabin Hu; Song Wu; Xiang Simon Wang
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2017-06-01       Impact factor: 4.956

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.  DOCK 6: Impact of new features and current docking performance.

Authors:  William J Allen; Trent E Balius; Sudipto Mukherjee; Scott R Brozell; Demetri T Moustakas; P Therese Lang; David A Case; Irwin D Kuntz; Robert C Rizzo
Journal:  J Comput Chem       Date:  2015-06-05       Impact factor: 3.376

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.