Literature DB >> 18253702

What do we know and when do we know it?

Anthony Nicholls1.   

Abstract

Two essential aspects of virtual screening are considered: experimental design and performance metrics. In the design of any retrospective virtual screen, choices have to be made as to the purpose of the exercise. Is the goal to compare methods? Is the interest in a particular type of target or all targets? Are we simulating a 'real-world' setting, or teasing out distinguishing features of a method? What are the confidence limits for the results? What should be reported in a publication? In particular, what criteria should be used to decide between different performance metrics? Comparing the field of molecular modeling to other endeavors, such as medical statistics, criminology, or computer hardware evaluation indicates some clear directions. Taken together these suggest the modeling field has a long way to go to provide effective assessment of its approaches, either to itself or to a broader audience, but that there are no technical reasons why progress cannot be made.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18253702      PMCID: PMC2270923          DOI: 10.1007/s10822-008-9170-2

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


  18 in total

1.  Protein-based virtual screening of chemical databases. 1. Evaluation of different docking/scoring combinations.

Authors:  C Bissantz; G Folkers; D Rognan
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2000-12-14       Impact factor: 7.446

2.  Protocols for bridging the peptide to nonpeptide gap in topological similarity searches.

Authors:  R P Sheridan; S B Singh; E M Fluder; S K Kearsley
Journal:  J Chem Inf Comput Sci       Date:  2001 Sep-Oct

3.  Virtual exploration of the small-molecule chemical universe below 160 Daltons.

Authors:  Tobias Fink; Heinz Bruggesser; Jean-Louis Reymond
Journal:  Angew Chem Int Ed Engl       Date:  2005-02-25       Impact factor: 15.336

4.  Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research.

Authors:  John P A Ioannidis
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2005-07-13       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  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

6.  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

7.  A critical assessment of docking programs and scoring functions.

Authors:  Gregory L Warren; C Webster Andrews; Anna-Maria Capelli; Brian Clarke; Judith LaLonde; Millard H Lambert; Mika Lindvall; Neysa Nevins; Simon F Semus; Stefan Senger; Giovanna Tedesco; Ian D Wall; James M Woolven; Catherine E Peishoff; Martha S Head
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2006-10-05       Impact factor: 7.446

8.  Comparison of topological, shape, and docking methods in virtual screening.

Authors:  Georgia B McGaughey; Robert P Sheridan; Christopher I Bayly; J Chris Culberson; Constantine Kreatsoulas; Stacey Lindsley; Vladimir Maiorov; Jean-Francois Truchon; Wendy D Cornell
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2007-06-26       Impact factor: 4.956

9.  Evaluating virtual screening methods: good and bad metrics for the "early recognition" problem.

Authors:  Jean-François Truchon; Christopher I Bayly
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2007-02-09       Impact factor: 4.956

10.  Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach.

Authors:  E R DeLong; D M DeLong; D L Clarke-Pearson
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1988-09       Impact factor: 2.571

View more
  67 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.  FRED and HYBRID docking performance on standardized datasets.

Authors:  Mark McGann
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2012-06-05       Impact factor: 3.686

Review 3.  Virtual screening: an endless staircase?

Authors:  Gisbert Schneider
Journal:  Nat Rev Drug Discov       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 84.694

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.  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.  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

7.  Enhancing Virtual Screening Performance of Protein Kinases with Molecular Dynamics Simulations.

Authors:  Tavina L Offutt; Robert V Swift; Rommie E Amaro
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2016-10-03       Impact factor: 4.956

8.  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

9.  Discovery of novel antimalarial compounds enabled by QSAR-based virtual screening.

Authors:  Liying Zhang; Denis Fourches; Alexander Sedykh; Hao Zhu; Alexander Golbraikh; Sean Ekins; Julie Clark; Michele C Connelly; Martina Sigal; Dena Hodges; Armand Guiguemde; R Kiplin Guy; Alexander Tropsha
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2013-01-23       Impact factor: 4.956

10.  Modeling of peroxide activation in artemisinin derivatives by serial docking.

Authors:  Roy J Little; Alexis A Pestano; Zaida Parra
Journal:  J Mol Model       Date:  2009-01-14       Impact factor: 1.810

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.