Literature DB >> 18273558

Customizing scoring functions for docking.

Tuan A Pham1, Ajay N Jain.   

Abstract

Empirical scoring functions used in protein-ligand docking calculations are typically trained on a dataset of complexes with known affinities with the aim of generalizing across different docking applications. We report a novel method of scoring-function optimization that supports the use of additional information to constrain scoring function parameters, which can be used to focus a scoring function's training towards a particular application, such as screening enrichment. The approach combines multiple instance learning, positive data in the form of ligands of protein binding sites of known and unknown affinity and binding geometry, and negative (decoy) data of ligands thought not to bind particular protein binding sites or known not to bind in particular geometries. Performance of the method for the Surflex-Dock scoring function is shown in cross-validation studies and in eight blind test cases. Tuned functions optimized with a sufficient amount of data exhibited either improved or undiminished screening performance relative to the original function across all eight complexes. Analysis of the changes to the scoring function suggest that modifications can be learned that are related to protein-specific features such as active-site mobility.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18273558      PMCID: PMC3108487          DOI: 10.1007/s10822-008-9174-y

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


  29 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.  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

3.  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

4.  Further development and validation of empirical scoring functions for structure-based binding affinity prediction.

Authors:  Renxiao Wang; Luhua Lai; Shaomeng Wang
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 3.686

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.  Parameter estimation for scoring protein-ligand interactions using negative training data.

Authors:  Tuan A Pham; Ajay N Jain
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2006-10-05       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.  3D structure of Torpedo californica acetylcholinesterase complexed with huprine X at 2.1 A resolution: kinetic and molecular dynamic correlates.

Authors:  H Dvir; D M Wong; M Harel; X Barril; M Orozco; F J Luque; D Muñoz-Torrero; P Camps; T L Rosenberry; I Silman; J L Sussman
Journal:  Biochemistry       Date:  2002-03-05       Impact factor: 3.162

9.  Acetylcholinesterase complexed with bivalent ligands related to huperzine a: experimental evidence for species-dependent protein-ligand complementarity.

Authors:  Dawn M Wong; Harry M Greenblatt; Hay Dvir; Paul R Carlier; Yi-Fan Han; Yuan-Ping Pang; Israel Silman; Joel L Sussman
Journal:  J Am Chem Soc       Date:  2003-01-15       Impact factor: 15.419

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

Authors:  Ajay N Jain
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2007-03-27       Impact factor: 4.179

View more
  20 in total

1.  Are predefined decoy sets of ligand poses able to quantify scoring function accuracy?

Authors:  Oliver Korb; Tim Ten Brink; Fredrick Robin Devadoss Victor Paul Raj; Matthias Keil; Thomas E Exner
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2012-01-10       Impact factor: 3.686

2.  Tautomers and topomers: challenging the uncertainties of direct physicochemical modeling.

Authors:  Richard D Cramer
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2010-03-21       Impact factor: 3.686

3.  QMOD: physically meaningful QSAR.

Authors:  Ajay N Jain
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2010-08-19       Impact factor: 3.686

4.  Robust optimization of scoring functions for a target class.

Authors:  Markus H J Seifert
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2009-05-27       Impact factor: 3.686

5.  DARS (Decoys As the Reference State) potentials for protein-protein docking.

Authors:  Gwo-Yu Chuang; Dima Kozakov; Ryan Brenke; Stephen R Comeau; Sandor Vajda
Journal:  Biophys J       Date:  2008-08-01       Impact factor: 4.033

6.  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

7.  Chemical structural novelty: on-targets and off-targets.

Authors:  Emmanuel R Yera; Ann E Cleves; Ajay N Jain
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2011-09-14       Impact factor: 7.446

8.  Does your model weigh the same as a duck?

Authors:  Ajay N Jain; Ann E Cleves
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2011-12-21       Impact factor: 3.686

9.  Lessons learned in empirical scoring with smina from the CSAR 2011 benchmarking exercise.

Authors:  David Ryan Koes; Matthew P Baumgartner; Carlos J Camacho
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2013-02-12       Impact factor: 4.956

10.  Physical binding pocket induction for affinity prediction.

Authors:  James J Langham; Ann E Cleves; Russell Spitzer; Daniel Kirshner; Ajay N Jain
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2009-10-08       Impact factor: 7.446

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.