Literature DB >> 18273559

Multiple protein structures and multiple ligands: effects on the apparent goodness of virtual screening results.

Robert P Sheridan1, Georgia B McGaughey, Wendy D Cornell.   

Abstract

As an extension to a previous published study (McGaughey et al., J Chem Inf Model 47:1504-1519, 2007) comparing 2D and 3D similarity methods to docking, we apply a subset of those virtual screening methods (TOPOSIM, SQW, ROCS-color, and Glide) to a set of protein/ligand pairs where the protein is the target for docking and the cocrystallized ligand is the target for the similarity methods. Each protein is represented by a maximum of five crystal structures. We search a diverse subset of the MDDR as well as a diverse small subset of the MCIDB, Merck's proprietary database. It is seen that the relative effectiveness of virtual screening methods, as measured by the enrichment factor, is highly dependent on the particular crystal structure or ligand, and on the database being searched. 2D similarity methods appear very good for the MDDR, but poor for the MCIDB. However, ROCS-color (a 3D similarity method) does well for both databases.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18273559     DOI: 10.1007/s10822-008-9168-9

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


  16 in total

Review 1.  Effectiveness of retrieval in similarity searches of chemical databases: a review of performance measures.

Authors:  S J Edgar; J D Holliday; P Willett
Journal:  J Mol Graph Model       Date:  2000 Aug-Oct       Impact factor: 2.518

2.  SQ: a program for rapidly producing pharmacophorically relevent molecular superpositions.

Authors:  M D Miller; R P Sheridan; S K Kearsley
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  1999-05-06       Impact factor: 7.446

3.  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

4.  Gaussian docking functions.

Authors:  Mark R McGann; Harold R Almond; Anthony Nicholls; J Andrew Grant; Frank K Brown
Journal:  Biopolymers       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 2.505

Review 5.  Virtual screening for kinase targets.

Authors:  Ingo Muegge; Istvan J Enyedy
Journal:  Curr Med Chem       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 4.530

6.  Glide: a new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 2. Enrichment factors in database screening.

Authors:  Thomas A Halgren; Robert B Murphy; Richard A Friesner; Hege S Beard; Leah L Frye; W Thomas Pollard; Jay L Banks
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2004-03-25       Impact factor: 7.446

7.  Glide: a new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 1. Method and assessment of docking accuracy.

Authors:  Richard A Friesner; Jay L Banks; Robert B Murphy; Thomas A Halgren; Jasna J Klicic; Daniel T Mainz; Matthew P Repasky; Eric H Knoll; Mee Shelley; Jason K Perry; David E Shaw; Perry Francis; Peter S Shenkin
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2004-03-25       Impact factor: 7.446

8.  Virtual screening workflow development guided by the "receiver operating characteristic" curve approach. Application to high-throughput docking on metabotropic glutamate receptor subtype 4.

Authors:  Nicolas Triballeau; Francine Acher; Isabelle Brabet; Jean-Philippe Pin; Hugues-Olivier Bertrand
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2005-04-07       Impact factor: 7.446

9.  Screening drug-like compounds by docking to homology models: a systematic study.

Authors:  Visvaldas Kairys; Miguel X Fernandes; Michael K Gilson
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2006 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 4.956

10.  A multivariate approach to investigate docking parameters' effects on docking performance.

Authors:  C David Andersson; Elin Thysell; Anton Lindström; Max Bylesjö; Florian Raubacher; Anna Linusson
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2007-06-09       Impact factor: 4.956

View more
  20 in total

1.  Virtual target screening: validation using kinase inhibitors.

Authors:  Daniel N Santiago; Yuri Pevzner; Ashley A Durand; MinhPhuong Tran; Rachel R Scheerer; Kenyon Daniel; Shen-Shu Sung; H Lee Woodcock; Wayne C Guida; Wesley H Brooks
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2012-07-23       Impact factor: 4.956

2.  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

3.  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

4.  A facile consensus ranking approach enhances virtual screening robustness and identifies a cell-active DYRK1α inhibitor.

Authors:  Maria E Mavrogeni; Filippos Pronios; Danae Zareifi; Sofia Vasilakaki; Olivier Lozach; Leonidas Alexopoulos; Laurent Meijer; Vassilios Myrianthopoulos; Emmanuel Mikros
Journal:  Future Med Chem       Date:  2018-10-16       Impact factor: 3.808

5.  Enabling the hypothesis-driven prioritization of ligand candidates in big databases: Screenlamp and its application to GPCR inhibitor discovery for invasive species control.

Authors:  Sebastian Raschka; Anne M Scott; Nan Liu; Santosh Gunturu; Mar Huertas; Weiming Li; Leslie A Kuhn
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2018-01-30       Impact factor: 3.686

6.  Visualizing ensembles in structural biology.

Authors:  Ryan L Melvin; Freddie R Salsbury
Journal:  J Mol Graph Model       Date:  2016-05-04       Impact factor: 2.518

7.  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

8.  Consistent improvement of cross-docking results using binding site ensembles generated with elastic network normal modes.

Authors:  Manuel Rueda; Giovanni Bottegoni; Ruben Abagyan
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 4.956

9.  Evaluation of DOCK 6 as a pose generation and database enrichment tool.

Authors:  Scott R Brozell; Sudipto Mukherjee; Trent E Balius; Daniel R Roe; David A Case; Robert C Rizzo
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2012-05-09       Impact factor: 3.686

10.  Ligand scaffold hopping combining 3D maximal substructure search and molecular similarity.

Authors:  Flavien Quintus; Olivier Sperandio; Julien Grynberg; Michel Petitjean; Pierre Tuffery
Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics       Date:  2009-08-11       Impact factor: 3.169

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.