Literature DB >> 17956084

Lessons in molecular recognition. 2. Assessing and improving cross-docking accuracy.

Jeffrey J Sutherland1, Ravi K Nandigam, Jon A Erickson, Michal Vieth.   

Abstract

Docking methods are used to predict the manner in which a ligand binds to a protein receptor. Many studies have assessed the success rate of programs in self-docking tests, whereby a ligand is docked into the protein structure from which it was extracted. Cross-docking, or using a protein structure from a complex containing a different ligand, provides a more realistic assessment of a docking program's ability to reproduce X-ray results. In this work, cross-docking was performed with CDocker, Fred, and Rocs using multiple X-ray structures for eight proteins (two kinases, one nuclear hormone receptor, one serine protease, two metalloproteases, and two phosphodiesterases). While average cross-docking accuracy is not encouraging, it is shown that using the protein structure from the complex that contains the bound ligand most similar to the docked ligand increases docking accuracy for all methods ("similarity selection"). Identifying the most successful protein conformer ("best selection") and similarity selection substantially reduce the difference between self-docking and average cross-docking accuracy. We identify universal predictors of docking accuracy (i.e., showing consistent behavior across most protein-method combinations), and show that models for predicting docking accuracy built using these parameters can be used to select the most appropriate docking method.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17956084     DOI: 10.1021/ci700253h

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Chem Inf Model        ISSN: 1549-9596            Impact factor:   4.956


  34 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.  Pose prediction and virtual screening performance of GOLD scoring functions in a standardized test.

Authors:  John W Liebeschuetz; Jason C Cole; Oliver Korb
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2012-02-28       Impact factor: 3.686

3.  Chemical space sampling by different scoring functions and crystal structures.

Authors:  Natasja Brooijmans; Christine Humblet
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2010-04-18       Impact factor: 3.686

4.  Interfacial Binding Sites for Cholesterol on Kir, Kv, K2P, and Related Potassium Channels.

Authors:  Anthony G Lee
Journal:  Biophys J       Date:  2020-06-04       Impact factor: 4.033

5.  Improving database enrichment through ensemble docking.

Authors:  Shashidhar Rao; Paul C Sanschagrin; Jeremy R Greenwood; Matthew P Repasky; Woody Sherman; Ramy Farid
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2008-02-06       Impact factor: 3.686

6.  Protein and ligand preparation: parameters, protocols, and influence on virtual screening enrichments.

Authors:  G Madhavi Sastry; Matvey Adzhigirey; Tyler Day; Ramakrishna Annabhimoju; Woody Sherman
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2013-04-12       Impact factor: 3.686

7.  The use of docking-based comparative intermolecular contacts analysis to identify optimal docking conditions within glucokinase and to discover of new GK activators.

Authors:  Mutasem O Taha; Maha Habash; Mohammad A Khanfar
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2014-03-08       Impact factor: 3.686

8.  An integrative study to identify novel scaffolds for sphingosine kinase 1 inhibitors.

Authors:  Marcela Vettorazzi; Emilio Angelina; Santiago Lima; Tomas Gonec; Jan Otevrel; Pavlina Marvanova; Tereza Padrtova; Petr Mokry; Pavel Bobal; Lina M Acosta; Alirio Palma; Justo Cobo; Janette Bobalova; Jozef Csollei; Ivan Malik; Sergio Alvarez; Sarah Spiegel; Josef Jampilek; Ricardo D Enriz
Journal:  Eur J Med Chem       Date:  2017-08-10       Impact factor: 6.514

9.  Lessons learned in induced fit docking and metadynamics in the Drug Design Data Resource Grand Challenge 2.

Authors:  Matthew P Baumgartner; David A Evans
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2017-11-10       Impact factor: 3.686

10.  Molecular shape and medicinal chemistry: a perspective.

Authors:  Anthony Nicholls; Georgia B McGaughey; Robert P Sheridan; Andrew C Good; Gregory Warren; Magali Mathieu; Steven W Muchmore; Scott P Brown; J Andrew Grant; James A Haigh; Neysa Nevins; Ajay N Jain; Brian Kelley
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2010-05-27       Impact factor: 7.446

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.