Literature DB >> 20127741

Evaluation of the performance of four molecular docking programs on a diverse set of protein-ligand complexes.

Xun Li1, Yan Li, Tiejun Cheng, Zhihai Liu, Renxiao Wang.   

Abstract

Many molecular docking programs are available nowadays, and thus it is of great practical value to evaluate and compare their performance. We have conducted an extensive evaluation of four popular commercial molecular docking programs, including Glide, GOLD, LigandFit, and Surflex. Our test set consists of 195 protein-ligand complexes with high-resolution crystal structures (resolution <or=2.5 A) and reliable binding data [dissociation constant (K(d)) or inhibition constant (K(i))], which are selected from the PDBbind database with an emphasis on diversity. The top-ranked solutions produced by these programs are compared to the native ligand binding poses observed in crystal structures. Glide and GOLD demonstrate better accuracy than the other two on the entire test set. Their results are also less sensitive to the starting structures for docking. Comparison of the results produced by these programs at three different computation levels reveal that their accuracy are not always proportional to CPU cost as one may expect. The binding scores of the top-ranked solutions produced by these programs are in low to moderate correlations with experimentally measured binding data. Further analyses on the outcomes of these programs on three suites of subsets of protein-ligand complexes indicate that these programs are less capable to handle really flexible ligands and relatively flat binding sites, and they have different preferences to hydrophilic/hydrophobic binding sites. Our evaluation can help other researchers to make reasonable choices among available molecular docking programs. It is also valuable for program developers to improve their methods further. (c) 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20127741     DOI: 10.1002/jcc.21498

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Comput Chem        ISSN: 0192-8651            Impact factor:   3.376


  37 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.  Small molecules containing hetero-bicyclic ring systems compete with UDP-Glc for binding to WaaG glycosyltransferase.

Authors:  Jens Landström; Karina Persson; Christoph Rademacher; Magnus Lundborg; Warren Wakarchuk; Thomas Peters; Göran Widmalm
Journal:  Glycoconj J       Date:  2012-06-19       Impact factor: 2.916

3.  FDA approved drugs complexed to their targets: evaluating pose prediction accuracy of docking protocols.

Authors:  Mohammed H Bohari; G Narahari Sastry
Journal:  J Mol Model       Date:  2012-05-08       Impact factor: 1.810

4.  Structure-based ensemble-QSAR model: a novel approach to the study of the EGFR tyrosine kinase and its inhibitors.

Authors:  Xian-qiang Sun; Lei Chen; Yao-zong Li; Wei-hua Li; Gui-xia Liu; Yao-quan Tu; Yun Tang
Journal:  Acta Pharmacol Sin       Date:  2013-12-16       Impact factor: 6.150

Review 5.  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

6.  Structural evolution of protein-biofilms: Simulations and experiments.

Authors:  Y Schmitt; H Hähl; C Gilow; H Mantz; K Jacobs; O Leidinger; M Bellion; L Santen
Journal:  Biomicrofluidics       Date:  2010-09-30       Impact factor: 2.800

7.  Negative Image-Based Rescoring: Using Cavity Information to Improve Docking Screening.

Authors:  Olli T Pentikäinen; Pekka A Postila
Journal:  Methods Mol Biol       Date:  2021

8.  Negative Image-Based Screening: Rigid Docking Using Cavity Information.

Authors:  Pekka A Postila; Sami T Kurkinen; Olli T Pentikäinen
Journal:  Methods Mol Biol       Date:  2021

Review 9.  Software for molecular docking: a review.

Authors:  Nataraj S Pagadala; Khajamohiddin Syed; Jack Tuszynski
Journal:  Biophys Rev       Date:  2017-01-16

Review 10.  Software and resources for computational medicinal chemistry.

Authors:  Chenzhong Liao; Markus Sitzmann; Angelo Pugliese; Marc C Nicklaus
Journal:  Future Med Chem       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 3.808

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.