Literature DB >> 19476350

Comparison of several molecular docking programs: pose prediction and virtual screening accuracy.

Jason B Cross1, David C Thompson, Brajesh K Rai, J Christian Baber, Kristi Yi Fan, Yongbo Hu, Christine Humblet.   

Abstract

Molecular docking programs are widely used modeling tools for predicting ligand binding modes and structure based virtual screening. In this study, six molecular docking programs (DOCK, FlexX, GLIDE, ICM, PhDOCK, and Surflex) were evaluated using metrics intended to assess docking pose and virtual screening accuracy. Cognate ligand docking to 68 diverse, high-resolution X-ray complexes revealed that ICM, GLIDE, and Surflex generated ligand poses close to the X-ray conformation more often than the other docking programs. GLIDE and Surflex also outperformed the other docking programs when used for virtual screening, based on mean ROC AUC and ROC enrichment values obtained for the 40 protein targets in the Directory of Useful Decoys (DUD). Further analysis uncovered general trends in accuracy that are specific for particular protein families. Modifying basic parameters in the software was shown to have a significant effect on docking and virtual screening results, suggesting that expert knowledge is critical for optimizing the accuracy of these methods.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19476350     DOI: 10.1021/ci900056c

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


  117 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.  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

Review 3.  Flexibility and binding affinity in protein-ligand, protein-protein and multi-component protein interactions: limitations of current computational approaches.

Authors:  Pierre Tuffery; Philippe Derreumaux
Journal:  J R Soc Interface       Date:  2011-10-12       Impact factor: 4.118

4.  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

5.  Multiple ligand docking by Glide: implications for virtual second-site screening.

Authors:  Márton Vass; Ákos Tarcsay; György M Keserű
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2012-05-26       Impact factor: 3.686

6.  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

7.  Improved ligand-protein binding affinity predictions using multiple binding modes.

Authors:  Eva Stjernschantz; Chris Oostenbrink
Journal:  Biophys J       Date:  2010-06-02       Impact factor: 4.033

8.  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

9.  Ultrafast protein structure-based virtual screening with Panther.

Authors:  Sanna P Niinivehmas; Kari Salokas; Sakari Lätti; Hannu Raunio; Olli T Pentikäinen
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2015-09-25       Impact factor: 3.686

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.