Literature DB >> 21755952

Construction and test of ligand decoy sets using MDock: community structure-activity resource benchmarks for binding mode prediction.

Sheng-You Huang1, Xiaoqin Zou.   

Abstract

Two sets of ligand binding decoys have been constructed for the community structure-activity resource (CSAR) benchmark by using the MDock and DOCK programs for rigid- and flexible-ligand docking, respectively. The decoys generated for each complex in the benchmark thoroughly cover the binding site and also contain a certain number of near-native binding modes. A few scoring functions have been evaluated using the ligand binding decoy sets for their abilities of predicting near-native binding modes. Among them, ITScore achieved a success rate of 86.7% for the rigid-ligand decoys and 79.7% for the flexible-ligand decoys, under the common definition of a successful prediction as root-mean-square deviation <2.0 Å from the native structure if the top-scored binding mode was considered. The decoy sets may serve as benchmarks for binding mode prediction of a scoring function, which are available at the CSAR Web site ( http://www.csardock.org/).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21755952      PMCID: PMC3190646          DOI: 10.1021/ci200080g

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


  32 in total

1.  The Protein Data Bank.

Authors:  H M Berman; J Westbrook; Z Feng; G Gilliland; T N Bhat; H Weissig; I N Shindyalov; P E Bourne
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2000-01-01       Impact factor: 16.971

2.  Fast, efficient generation of high-quality atomic charges. AM1-BCC model: II. Parameterization and validation.

Authors:  Araz Jakalian; David B Jack; Christopher I Bayly
Journal:  J Comput Chem       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 3.376

3.  Assessing scoring functions for protein-ligand interactions.

Authors:  Philippe Ferrara; Holger Gohlke; Daniel J Price; Gerhard Klebe; Charles L Brooks
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2004-06-03       Impact factor: 7.446

4.  Comparative evaluation of eight docking tools for docking and virtual screening accuracy.

Authors:  Esther Kellenberger; Jordi Rodrigo; Pascal Muller; Didier Rognan
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2004-11-01

5.  Comparative study of several algorithms for flexible ligand docking.

Authors:  Badry D Bursulaya; Maxim Totrov; Ruben Abagyan; Charles L Brooks
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 3.686

6.  Scoring and lessons learned with the CSAR benchmark using an improved iterative knowledge-based scoring function.

Authors:  Sheng-You Huang; Xiaoqin Zou
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2011-08-31       Impact factor: 4.956

Review 7.  Comparing protein-ligand docking programs is difficult.

Authors:  Jason C Cole; Christopher W Murray; J Willem M Nissink; Richard D Taylor; Robin Taylor
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2005-08-15

8.  Ensemble docking of multiple protein structures: considering protein structural variations in molecular docking.

Authors:  Sheng-You Huang; Xiaoqin Zou
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2007-02-01

Review 9.  Evaluation of the performance of 3D virtual screening protocols: RMSD comparisons, enrichment assessments, and decoy selection--what can we learn from earlier mistakes?

Authors:  Johannes Kirchmair; Patrick Markt; Simona Distinto; Gerhard Wolber; Thierry Langer
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2008-01-15       Impact factor: 3.686

Review 10.  How to do an evaluation: pitfalls and traps.

Authors:  Paul C D Hawkins; Gregory L Warren; A Geoffrey Skillman; Anthony Nicholls
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2008-01-23       Impact factor: 3.686

View more
  6 in total

1.  A nonredundant structure dataset for benchmarking protein-RNA computational docking.

Authors:  Sheng-You Huang; Xiaoqin Zou
Journal:  J Comput Chem       Date:  2012-10-10       Impact factor: 3.376

2.  Automated large-scale file preparation, docking, and scoring: evaluation of ITScore and STScore using the 2012 Community Structure-Activity Resource benchmark.

Authors:  Sam Z Grinter; Chengfei Yan; Sheng-You Huang; Lin Jiang; Xiaoqin Zou
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2013-05-21       Impact factor: 4.956

3.  Improving scoring-docking-screening powers of protein-ligand scoring functions using random forest.

Authors:  Cheng Wang; Yingkai Zhang
Journal:  J Comput Chem       Date:  2016-11-17       Impact factor: 3.376

4.  Predicting protein-ligand binding modes for CELPP and GC3: workflows and insight.

Authors:  Xianjin Xu; Zhiwei Ma; Rui Duan; Xiaoqin Zou
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2019-01-28       Impact factor: 3.686

5.  Efficient conformational ensemble generation of protein-bound peptides.

Authors:  Yumeng Yan; Di Zhang; Sheng-You Huang
Journal:  J Cheminform       Date:  2017-11-22       Impact factor: 5.514

6.  CSAR data set release 2012: ligands, affinities, complexes, and docking decoys.

Authors:  James B Dunbar; Richard D Smith; Kelly L Damm-Ganamet; Aqeel Ahmed; Emilio Xavier Esposito; James Delproposto; Krishnapriya Chinnaswamy; You-Na Kang; Ginger Kubish; Jason E Gestwicki; Jeanne A Stuckey; Heather A Carlson
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2013-05-10       Impact factor: 4.956

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.