Literature DB >> 17387436

Surflex-Dock 2.1: robust performance from ligand energetic modeling, ring flexibility, and knowledge-based search.

Ajay N Jain1.   

Abstract

The Surflex flexible molecular docking method has been generalized and extended in two primary areas related to the search component of docking. First, incorporation of a small-molecule force-field extends the search into Cartesian coordinates constrained by internal ligand energetics. Whereas previous versions searched only the alignment and acyclic torsional space of the ligand, the new approach supports dynamic ring flexibility and all-atom optimization of docked ligand poses. Second, knowledge of well established molecular interactions between ligand fragments and a target protein can be directly exploited to guide the search process. This offers advantages in some cases over the search strategy where ligand alignment is guided solely by a "protomol" (a pre-computed molecular representation of an idealized ligand). Results are presented on both docking accuracy and screening utility using multiple publicly available benchmark data sets that place Surflex's performance in the context of other molecular docking methods. In terms of docking accuracy, Surflex-Dock 2.1 performs as well as the best available methods. In the area of screening utility, Surflex's performance is extremely robust, and it is clearly superior to other methods within the set of cases for which comparative data are available, with roughly double the screening enrichment performance.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17387436     DOI: 10.1007/s10822-007-9114-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des        ISSN: 0920-654X            Impact factor:   4.179


  39 in total

1.  Predicting binding affinities of protein ligands from three-dimensional models: application to peptide binding to class I major histocompatibility proteins.

Authors:  D Rognan; S L Lauemoller; A Holm; S Buus; V Tschinke
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  1999-11-04       Impact factor: 7.446

2.  Deciphering common failures in molecular docking of ligand-protein complexes.

Authors:  G M Verkhivker; D Bouzida; D K Gehlhaar; P A Rejto; S Arthurs; A B Colson; S T Freer; V Larson; B A Luty; T Marrone; P W Rose
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 3.686

3.  Knowledge-based scoring function to predict protein-ligand interactions.

Authors:  H Gohlke; M Hendlich; G Klebe
Journal:  J Mol Biol       Date:  2000-01-14       Impact factor: 5.469

4.  Novel inhibitors of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase/PARP1 and PARP2 identified using a cell-based screen in yeast.

Authors:  E Perkins; D Sun; A Nguyen; S Tulac; M Francesco; H Tavana; H Nguyen; S Tugendreich; P Barthmaier; J Couto; E Yeh; S Thode; K Jarnagin; A Jain; D Morgans; T Melese
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  2001-05-15       Impact factor: 12.701

5.  A detailed comparison of current docking and scoring methods on systems of pharmaceutical relevance.

Authors:  Emanuele Perola; W Patrick Walters; Paul S Charifson
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2004-08-01

6.  The PDBbind database: collection of binding affinities for protein-ligand complexes with known three-dimensional structures.

Authors:  Renxiao Wang; Xueliang Fang; Yipin Lu; Shaomeng Wang
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2004-06-03       Impact factor: 7.446

7.  Fast structure-based virtual ligand screening combining FRED, DOCK, and Surflex.

Authors:  Maria A Miteva; Wen H Lee; Matthieu O Montes; Bruno O Villoutreix
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2005-09-22       Impact factor: 7.446

8.  Diverse, high-quality test set for the validation of protein-ligand docking performance.

Authors:  Michael J Hartshorn; Marcel L Verdonk; Gianni Chessari; Suzanne C Brewerton; Wijnand T M Mooij; Paul N Mortenson; Christopher W Murray
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2007-02-22       Impact factor: 7.446

9.  Scoring noncovalent protein-ligand interactions: a continuous differentiable function tuned to compute binding affinities.

Authors:  A N Jain
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  1996-10       Impact factor: 3.686

10.  Distilling the essential features of a protein surface for improving protein-ligand docking, scoring, and virtual screening.

Authors:  Maria I Zavodszky; Paul C Sanschagrin; Rajesh S Korde; Leslie A Kuhn
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 3.686

View more
  161 in total

1.  Crystal structure of histamine dehydrogenase from Nocardioides simplex.

Authors:  Timothy Reed; Gerald H Lushington; Yan Xia; Hidehiko Hirakawa; DeAnna M Travis; Minae Mure; Emily E Scott; Julian Limburg
Journal:  J Biol Chem       Date:  2010-06-10       Impact factor: 5.157

2.  Global structure-activity relationship model for nonmutagenic carcinogens using virtual ligand-protein interactions as model descriptors.

Authors:  Albert R Cunningham; C Alex Carrasquer; Shahid Qamar; Jon M Maguire; Suzanne L Cunningham; John O Trent
Journal:  Carcinogenesis       Date:  2012-06-07       Impact factor: 4.944

Review 3.  Structure-based discovery of antibacterial drugs.

Authors:  Katie J Simmons; Ian Chopra; Colin W G Fishwick
Journal:  Nat Rev Microbiol       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 60.633

4.  Scoring and lessons learned with the CSAR benchmark using an improved iterative knowledge-based scoring function.

Authors:  Sheng-You Huang; Xiaoqin Zou
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2011-08-31       Impact factor: 4.956

5.  The statistics of virtual screening and lead optimization.

Authors:  Mark McGann; Anthony Nicholls; Istvan Enyedy
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 3.686

6.  Structure-dependent binding of arylimidamides to the DNA minor groove.

Authors:  Yun Chai; Manoj Munde; Arvind Kumar; Leah Mickelson; Sen Lin; Nancy H Campbell; Moloy Banerjee; Senol Akay; Zongying Liu; Abdelbasset A Farahat; Raja Nhili; Sabine Depauw; Marie-Hélène David-Cordonnier; Stephen Neidle; W David Wilson; David W Boykin
Journal:  Chembiochem       Date:  2013-12-09       Impact factor: 3.164

Review 7.  A review of mathematical representations of biomolecular data.

Authors:  Duc Duy Nguyen; Zixuan Cang; Guo-Wei Wei
Journal:  Phys Chem Chem Phys       Date:  2020-02-26       Impact factor: 3.676

8.  TSPO-targeted PET and Optical Probes for the Detection and Localization of Premalignant and Malignant Pancreatic Lesions.

Authors:  Allison S Cohen; Jun Li; Matthew R Hight; Eliot McKinley; Allie Fu; Adria Payne; Yang Liu; Dawei Zhang; Qing Xie; Mingfeng Bai; Gregory D Ayers; Mohammed Noor Tantawy; Jarrod A Smith; Frank Revetta; M Kay Washington; Chanjuan Shi; Nipun Merchant; H Charles Manning
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2020-09-15       Impact factor: 12.531

9.  Total synthesis and evaluation of C26-hydroxyepothilone D derivatives for photoaffinity labeling of beta-tubulin.

Authors:  Emily A Reiff; Sajiv K Nair; John T Henri; Jack F Greiner; Bollu S Reddy; Ramappa Chakrasali; Sunil A David; Ting-Lan Chiu; Elizabeth A Amin; Richard H Himes; David G Vander Velde; Gunda I Georg
Journal:  J Org Chem       Date:  2010-01-01       Impact factor: 4.354

10.  BCL::MolAlign: Three-Dimensional Small Molecule Alignment for Pharmacophore Mapping.

Authors:  Benjamin P Brown; Jeffrey Mendenhall; Jens Meiler
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2019-02-12       Impact factor: 4.956

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.