Literature DB >> 21830787

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

Sheng-You Huang1, Xiaoqin Zou.   

Abstract

Based on a statistical mechanics-based iterative method, we have extracted a set of distance-dependent, all-atom pairwise potentials for protein-ligand interactions from the crystal structures of 1300 protein-ligand complexes. The iterative method circumvents the long-standing reference state problem in knowledge-based scoring functions. The resulted scoring function, referred to as ITScore 2.0, has been tested with the CSAR (Community Structure-Activity Resource, 2009 release) benchmark of 345 diverse protein-ligand complexes. ITScore 2.0 achieved a Pearson correlation of R(2) = 0.54 in binding affinity prediction. A comparative analysis has been done on the scoring performances of ITScore 2.0, the van der Waals (VDW) scoring function, the VDW with heavy atoms only, and the force field (FF) scoring function of DOCK which consists of a VDW term and an electrostatic term. The results reveal several important factors that affect the scoring performances, which could be helpful for the improvement of scoring functions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21830787      PMCID: PMC3190652          DOI: 10.1021/ci2000727

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


  64 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.  Electrostatics of nanosystems: application to microtubules and the ribosome.

Authors:  N A Baker; D Sept; S Joseph; M J Holst; J A McCammon
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2001-08-21       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  SMall Molecule Growth 2001 (SMoG2001): an improved knowledge-based scoring function for protein-ligand interactions.

Authors:  Alexey V Ishchenko; Eugene I Shakhnovich
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2002-06-20       Impact factor: 7.446

4.  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

Review 5.  Molecular recognition and docking algorithms.

Authors:  Natasja Brooijmans; Irwin D Kuntz
Journal:  Annu Rev Biophys Biomol Struct       Date:  2003-01-28

6.  The GROMOS software for biomolecular simulation: GROMOS05.

Authors:  Markus Christen; Philippe H Hünenberger; Dirk Bakowies; Riccardo Baron; Roland Bürgi; Daan P Geerke; Tim N Heinz; Mika A Kastenholz; Vincent Kräutler; Chris Oostenbrink; Christine Peter; Daniel Trzesniak; Wilfred F van Gunsteren
Journal:  J Comput Chem       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 3.376

7.  General and targeted statistical potentials for protein-ligand interactions.

Authors:  Wijnand T M Mooij; Marcel L Verdonk
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2005-11-01

8.  Physics-based scoring of protein-ligand complexes: enrichment of known inhibitors in large-scale virtual screening.

Authors:  Niu Huang; Chakrapani Kalyanaraman; John J Irwin; Matthew P Jacobson
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2006 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 4.956

Review 9.  Physics-based methods for studying protein-ligand interactions.

Authors:  Niu Huang; Matthew P Jacobson
Journal:  Curr Opin Drug Discov Devel       Date:  2007-05

10.  A new method for predicting binding affinity in computer-aided drug design.

Authors:  J Aqvist; C Medina; J E Samuelsson
Journal:  Protein Eng       Date:  1994-03
View more
  14 in total

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

Authors:  Sheng-You Huang; Xiaoqin Zou
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2011-08-03       Impact factor: 4.956

2.  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

3.  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

4.  Convex-PL: a novel knowledge-based potential for protein-ligand interactions deduced from structural databases using convex optimization.

Authors:  Maria Kadukova; Sergei Grudinin
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2017-09-18       Impact factor: 3.686

5.  Incorporating Explicit Water Molecules and Ligand Conformation Stability in Machine-Learning Scoring Functions.

Authors:  Jianing Lu; Xuben Hou; Cheng Wang; Yingkai Zhang
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2019-10-31       Impact factor: 4.956

6.  A D3R prospective evaluation of machine learning for protein-ligand scoring.

Authors:  Jocelyn Sunseri; Matthew Ragoza; Jasmine Collins; David Ryan Koes
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2016-09-03       Impact factor: 3.686

7.  Iterative Knowledge-Based Scoring Functions Derived from Rigid and Flexible Decoy Structures: Evaluation with the 2013 and 2014 CSAR Benchmarks.

Authors:  Chengfei Yan; Sam Z Grinter; Benjamin Ryan Merideth; Zhiwei Ma; Xiaoqin Zou
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2015-10-01       Impact factor: 4.956

8.  Structure and ligand-binding mechanism of the human OX1 and OX2 orexin receptors.

Authors:  Jie Yin; Kerim Babaoglu; Chad A Brautigam; Lindsay Clark; Zhenhua Shao; Thomas H Scheuermann; Charles M Harrell; Anthony L Gotter; Anthony J Roecker; Christopher J Winrow; John J Renger; Paul J Coleman; Daniel M Rosenbaum
Journal:  Nat Struct Mol Biol       Date:  2016-03-07       Impact factor: 15.369

9.  Lessons Learned over Four Benchmark Exercises from the Community Structure-Activity Resource.

Authors:  Heather A Carlson
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2016-06-27       Impact factor: 4.956

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.