Literature DB >> 18188508

Optimization of CAMD techniques 3. Virtual screening enrichment studies: a help or hindrance in tool selection?

Andrew C Good1, Tudor I Oprea.   

Abstract

Over the last few years many articles have been published in an attempt to provide performance benchmarks for virtual screening tools. While this research has imparted useful insights, the myriad variables controlling said studies place significant limits on results interpretability. Here we investigate the effects of these variables, including analysis of calculation setup variation, the effect of target choice, active/decoy set selection (with particular emphasis on the effect of analogue bias) and enrichment data interpretation. In addition the optimization of the publicly available DUD benchmark sets through analogue bias removal is discussed, as is their augmentation through the addition of large diverse data sets collated using WOMBAT.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18188508     DOI: 10.1007/s10822-007-9167-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des        ISSN: 0920-654X            Impact factor:   3.686


  30 in total

1.  Consensus scoring: A method for obtaining improved hit rates from docking databases of three-dimensional structures into proteins.

Authors:  P S Charifson; J J Corkery; M A Murcko; W P Walters
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  1999-12-16       Impact factor: 7.446

2.  Inhibitors of dihydrodipicolinate reductase, a key enzyme of the diaminopimelate pathway of Mycobacterium tuberculosis.

Authors:  A M Paiva; D E Vanderwall; J S Blanchard; J W Kozarich; J M Williamson; T M Kelly
Journal:  Biochim Biophys Acta       Date:  2001-02-09

3.  Similarity searching using reduced graphs.

Authors:  Valerie J Gillet; Peter Willett; John Bradshaw
Journal:  J Chem Inf Comput Sci       Date:  2003 Mar-Apr

Review 4.  High-throughput docking as a source of novel drug leads.

Authors:  Juan C Alvarez
Journal:  Curr Opin Chem Biol       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 8.822

Review 5.  Virtual screening in structure-based drug discovery.

Authors:  X Barril; R E Hubbard; S D Morley
Journal:  Mini Rev Med Chem       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 3.862

Review 6.  Virtual screening of chemical libraries.

Authors:  Brian K Shoichet
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2004-12-16       Impact factor: 49.962

Review 7.  Docking: successes and challenges.

Authors:  Venkatraman Mohan; Alan C Gibbs; Maxwell D Cummings; Edward P Jaeger; Renee L DesJarlais
Journal:  Curr Pharm Des       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 3.116

8.  Virtual screening of biogenic amine-binding G-protein coupled receptors: comparative evaluation of protein- and ligand-based virtual screening protocols.

Authors:  Andreas Evers; Gerhard Hessler; Hans Matter; Thomas Klabunde
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2005-08-25       Impact factor: 7.446

9.  Comparison of shape-matching and docking as virtual screening tools.

Authors:  Paul C D Hawkins; A Geoffrey Skillman; Anthony Nicholls
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2007-01-11       Impact factor: 7.446

10.  Influenza virus neuraminidase inhibitors: generation and comparison of structure-based and common feature pharmacophore hypotheses and their application in virtual screening.

Authors:  Theodora Steindl; Thierry Langer
Journal:  J Chem Inf Comput Sci       Date:  2004 Sep-Oct
View more
  50 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.  Substantial improvements in large-scale redocking and screening using the novel HYDE scoring function.

Authors:  Nadine Schneider; Sally Hindle; Gudrun Lange; Robert Klein; Jürgen Albrecht; Hans Briem; Kristin Beyer; Holger Claußen; Marcus Gastreich; Christian Lemmen; Matthias Rarey
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2011-12-27       Impact factor: 3.686

4.  Biased retrieval of chemical series in receptor-based virtual screening.

Authors:  Natasja Brooijmans; Jason B Cross; Christine Humblet
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2010-10-30       Impact factor: 3.686

5.  ElectroShape: fast molecular similarity calculations incorporating shape, chirality and electrostatics.

Authors:  M Stuart Armstrong; Garrett M Morris; Paul W Finn; Raman Sharma; Loris Moretti; Richard I Cooper; W Graham Richards
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2010-07-08       Impact factor: 3.686

Review 6.  Community benchmarks for virtual screening.

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

7.  Managing bias in ROC curves.

Authors:  Robert D Clark; Daniel J Webster-Clark
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2008-02-07       Impact factor: 3.686

8.  Lead Finder docking and virtual screening evaluation with Astex and DUD test sets.

Authors:  Fedor N Novikov; Viktor S Stroylov; Alexey A Zeifman; Oleg V Stroganov; Val Kulkov; Ghermes G Chilov
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2012-05-09       Impact factor: 3.686

Review 9.  Computational methods in drug discovery.

Authors:  Gregory Sliwoski; Sandeepkumar Kothiwale; Jens Meiler; Edward W Lowe
Journal:  Pharmacol Rev       Date:  2013-12-31       Impact factor: 25.468

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.