Literature DB >> 22482737

Freely available conformer generation methods: how good are they?

Jean-Paul Ebejer1, Garrett M Morris, Charlotte M Deane.   

Abstract

Conformer generation has important implications in cheminformatics, particularly in computational drug discovery where the quality of conformer generation software may affect the outcome of a virtual screening exercise. We examine the performance of four freely available small molecule conformer generation tools (Balloon, Confab, Frog2, and RDKit) alongside a commercial tool (MOE). The aim of this study is 3-fold: (i) to identify which tools most accurately reproduce experimentally determined structures; (ii) to examine the diversity of the generated conformational set; and (iii) to benchmark the computational time expended. These aspects were tested using a set of 708 drug-like molecules assembled from the OMEGA validation set and the Astex Diverse Set. These molecules have varying physicochemical properties and at least one known X-ray crystal structure. We found that RDKit and Confab are statistically better than other methods at generating low rmsd conformers to the known structure. RDKit is particularly suited for less flexible molecules while Confab, with its systematic approach, is able to generate conformers which are geometrically closer to the experimentally determined structure for molecules with a large number of rotatable bonds (≥10). In our tests RDKit also resulted as the second fastest method after Frog2. In order to enhance the performance of RDKit, we developed a postprocessing algorithm to build a diverse and representative set of conformers which also contains a close conformer to the known structure. Our analysis indicates that, with postprocessing, RDKit is a valid free alternative to commercial, proprietary software.

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22482737     DOI: 10.1021/ci2004658

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


  39 in total

1.  Avalanche for shape and feature-based virtual screening with 3D alignment.

Authors:  David J Diller; Nancy D Connell; William J Welsh
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2015-10-12       Impact factor: 3.686

Review 2.  Open source molecular modeling.

Authors:  Somayeh Pirhadi; Jocelyn Sunseri; David Ryan Koes
Journal:  J Mol Graph Model       Date:  2016-07-30       Impact factor: 2.518

3.  A Simple Representation of Three-Dimensional Molecular Structure.

Authors:  Seth D Axen; Xi-Ping Huang; Elena L Cáceres; Leo Gendelev; Bryan L Roth; Michael J Keiser
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2017-08-08       Impact factor: 7.446

4.  Conformational ensemble comparison for small molecules in drug discovery.

Authors:  Matthew Habgood
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2018-07-09       Impact factor: 3.686

5.  POVME 3.0: Software for Mapping Binding Pocket Flexibility.

Authors:  Jeffrey R Wagner; Jesper Sørensen; Nathan Hensley; Celia Wong; Clare Zhu; Taylor Perison; Rommie E Amaro
Journal:  J Chem Theory Comput       Date:  2017-08-30       Impact factor: 6.006

6.  Computational generation of an annotated gigalibrary of synthesizable, composite peptidic macrocycles.

Authors:  Ishika Saha; Eric K Dang; Dennis Svatunek; Kendall N Houk; Patrick G Harran
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2020-09-18       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  Bioactive focus in conformational ensembles: a pluralistic approach.

Authors:  Matthew Habgood
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2017-11-30       Impact factor: 3.686

Review 8.  Improving small molecule virtual screening strategies for the next generation of therapeutics.

Authors:  Bentley M Wingert; Carlos J Camacho
Journal:  Curr Opin Chem Biol       Date:  2018-06-17       Impact factor: 8.822

9.  qFit-ligand Reveals Widespread Conformational Heterogeneity of Drug-Like Molecules in X-Ray Electron Density Maps.

Authors:  Gydo C P van Zundert; Brandi M Hudson; Saulo H P de Oliveira; Daniel A Keedy; Rasmus Fonseca; Amelie Heliou; Pooja Suresh; Kenneth Borrelli; Tyler Day; James S Fraser; Henry van den Bedem
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2018-12-06       Impact factor: 7.446

10.  Rosetta and the Design of Ligand Binding Sites.

Authors:  Rocco Moretti; Brian J Bender; Brittany Allison; Jens Meiler
Journal:  Methods Mol Biol       Date:  2016
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.