Literature DB >> 17073642

Docking and scoring--theoretically easy, practically impossible?

B Coupez1, R A Lewis.   

Abstract

Structure-based Drug Design (SBDD) is an essential part of the modern medicinal chemistry, and has led to the acceleration of many projects, and even to drugs on the market. Programs that perform docking and scoring of ligands to receptors are powerful tools in the drug designer's armoury that enhance the process of SBDD. They are even deployed on the desktop of many bench chemists. It is timely to review the state of the art, to understand how good our docking programs are, and what are the issues. In this review we would like to provide a guide around the reliable aspects of docking and scoring and the associated pitfalls aiming at an audience of medicinal chemists rather than modellers. For convenience, we will divide the review into two parts: docking and scoring. Docking concerns the preparation of the receptor and the ligand(s), the sampling of conformational space and stereochemistry (if appropriate). Scoring concerns the evaluation of all of the ligand-receptor poses generated by docking. The two processes are not truly independent, and this will be discussed here in detail. The preparation of the receptor and ligand(s) before docking requires great care. For the receptor, issues of protonation, tautomerisation and hydration are key, and we will discuss current approaches to these issues. Even more important is the degree of sampling: can the algorithms reproduce what is observed experimentally? If they can, are the scoring algorithms good enough to recognise this pose as the best? Do the scores correlate with observed binding affinity? How does local knowledge of the target (for example hinge-binding to a kinase) affect the accuracy of the predictions? We will review the key findings from several evaluation studies and present conclusions about when and how to interpret and trust the results of docking and scoring. Finally, we will present an outline of some of the latest developments in the area of scoring functions.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17073642     DOI: 10.2174/092986706778521797

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Med Chem        ISSN: 0929-8673            Impact factor:   4.530


  27 in total

1.  Can we use docking and scoring for hit-to-lead optimization?

Authors:  Istvan J Enyedy; William J Egan
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2008-01-09       Impact factor: 3.686

2.  Identification of novel target sites and an inhibitor of the dengue virus E protein.

Authors:  Ragothaman Yennamalli; Naidu Subbarao; Thorsten Kampmann; Ross P McGeary; Paul R Young; Bostjan Kobe
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2009-02-25       Impact factor: 3.686

3.  Statistical potential for modeling and ranking of protein-ligand interactions.

Authors:  Hao Fan; Dina Schneidman-Duhovny; John J Irwin; Guangqiang Dong; Brian K Shoichet; Andrej Sali
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2011-11-21       Impact factor: 4.956

4.  Ligand and structure-based methodologies for the prediction of the activity of G protein-coupled receptor ligands.

Authors:  Stefano Costanzi; Irina G Tikhonova; T Kendall Harden; Kenneth A Jacobson
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2008-05-16       Impact factor: 3.686

5.  A comparative study of family-specific protein-ligand complex affinity prediction based on random forest approach.

Authors:  Yu Wang; Yanzhi Guo; Qifan Kuang; Xuemei Pu; Yue Ji; Zhihang Zhang; Menglong Li
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2014-12-20       Impact factor: 3.686

6.  Rapid activity prediction of HIV-1 integrase inhibitors: harnessing docking energetic components for empirical scoring by chemometric and artificial neural network approaches.

Authors:  Patcharapong Thangsunan; Sila Kittiwachana; Puttinan Meepowpan; Nawee Kungwan; Panchika Prangkio; Supa Hannongbua; Nuttee Suree
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2016-06-17       Impact factor: 3.686

7.  Profiling lipid-protein interactions using nonquenched fluorescent liposomal nanovesicles and proteome microarrays.

Authors:  Kuan-Yi Lu; Sheng-Ce Tao; Tzu-Ching Yang; Yu-Hsuan Ho; Chia-Hsien Lee; Chen-Ching Lin; Hsueh-Fen Juan; Hsuan-Cheng Huang; Chin-Yu Yang; Ming-Shuo Chen; Yu-Yi Lin; Jin-Ying Lu; Heng Zhu; Chien-Sheng Chen
Journal:  Mol Cell Proteomics       Date:  2012-07-26       Impact factor: 5.911

8.  MedusaScore: an accurate force field-based scoring function for virtual drug screening.

Authors:  Shuangye Yin; Lada Biedermannova; Jiri Vondrasek; Nikolay V Dokholyan
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2008-08-02       Impact factor: 4.956

9.  Chimeric design, synthesis, and biological assays of a new nonpeptide insulin-mimetic vanadium compound to inhibit protein tyrosine phosphatase 1B.

Authors:  Thomas Scior; José Antonio Guevara-García; F J Melendez; Hassan H Abdallah; Quoc-Tuan Do; Philippe Bernard
Journal:  Drug Des Devel Ther       Date:  2010-09-24       Impact factor: 4.162

10.  Antidiabetic Bis-Maltolato-OxoVanadium(IV): conversion of inactive trans- to bioactive cis-BMOV for possible binding to target PTP-1B.

Authors:  Thomas Scior; Hans-Georg Mack; José Antonio Guevara García; Wolfhard Koch
Journal:  Drug Des Devel Ther       Date:  2009-02-06       Impact factor: 4.162

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.