Literature DB >> 22566074

Variability in docking success rates due to dataset preparation.

Christopher R Corbeil1, Christopher I Williams, Paul Labute.   

Abstract

The results of cognate docking with the prepared Astex dataset provided by the organizers of the "Docking and Scoring: A Review of Docking Programs" session at the 241st ACS national meeting are presented. The MOE software with the newly developed GBVI/WSA dG scoring function is used throughout the study. For 80 % of the Astex targets, the MOE docker produces a top-scoring pose within 2 Å of the X-ray structure. For 91 % of the targets a pose within 2 Å of the X-ray structure is produced in the top 30 poses. Docking failures, defined as cases where the top scoring pose is greater than 2 Å from the experimental structure, are shown to be largely due to the absence of bound waters in the source dataset, highlighting the need to include these and other crucial information in future standardized sets. Docking success is shown to depend heavily on data preparation. A "dataset preparation" error of 0.5 kcal/mol is shown to cause fluctuations of over 20 % in docking success rates.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22566074      PMCID: PMC3397132          DOI: 10.1007/s10822-012-9570-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des        ISSN: 0920-654X            Impact factor:   3.686


  61 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.  Glide: a new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 1. Method and assessment of docking accuracy.

Authors:  Richard A Friesner; Jay L Banks; Robert B Murphy; Thomas A Halgren; Jasna J Klicic; Daniel T Mainz; Matthew P Repasky; Eric H Knoll; Mee Shelley; Jason K Perry; David E Shaw; Perry Francis; Peter S Shenkin
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2004-03-25       Impact factor: 7.446

3.  Critical assessment of methods of protein structure prediction (CASP)--round 6.

Authors:  John Moult; Krzysztof Fidelis; Burkhard Rost; Tim Hubbard; Anna Tramontano
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2005

4.  Docking ligands into flexible and solvated macromolecules. 1. Development and validation of FITTED 1.0.

Authors:  Christopher R Corbeil; Pablo Englebienne; Nicolas Moitessier
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2007-02-17       Impact factor: 4.956

5.  A blind challenge for computational solvation free energies: introduction and overview.

Authors:  J Peter Guthrie
Journal:  J Phys Chem B       Date:  2009-04-09       Impact factor: 2.991

Review 6.  The role of water molecules in computational drug design.

Authors:  Stephanie B A de Beer; Nico P E Vermeulen; Chris Oostenbrink
Journal:  Curr Top Med Chem       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 3.295

7.  Solvated interaction energy (SIE) for scoring protein-ligand binding affinities. 2. Benchmark in the CSAR-2010 scoring exercise.

Authors:  Traian Sulea; Qizhi Cui; Enrico O Purisima
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2011-07-13       Impact factor: 4.956

8.  The particle concept: placing discrete water molecules during protein-ligand docking predictions.

Authors:  M Rarey; B Kramer; T Lengauer
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  1999-01-01

9.  Interdomain interactions modulate collective dynamics of the metal-binding domains in the Wilson disease protein.

Authors:  Agustina Rodriguez-Granillo; Alejandro Crespo; Pernilla Wittung-Stafshede
Journal:  J Phys Chem B       Date:  2010-02-11       Impact factor: 2.991

10.  CSAR benchmark exercise of 2010: combined evaluation across all submitted scoring functions.

Authors:  Richard D Smith; James B Dunbar; Peter Man-Un Ung; Emilio X Esposito; Chao-Yie Yang; Shaomeng Wang; Heather A Carlson
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2011-08-29       Impact factor: 4.956

View more
  104 in total

1.  Kaempferol Exhibits Progestogenic Effects in Ovariectomized Rats.

Authors:  May Fern Toh; Emma Mendonca; Sharon L Eddie; Michael P Endsley; Daniel D Lantvit; Pavel A Petukhov; Joanna E Burdette
Journal:  J Steroids Horm Sci       Date:  2014

2.  AutoDock Bias: improving binding mode prediction and virtual screening using known protein-ligand interactions.

Authors:  Juan Pablo Arcon; Carlos P Modenutti; Demian Avendaño; Elias D Lopez; Lucas A Defelipe; Francesca Alessandra Ambrosio; Adrian G Turjanski; Stefano Forli; Marcelo A Marti
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2019-10-01       Impact factor: 6.937

3.  Biased Docking for Protein-Ligand Pose Prediction.

Authors:  Juan Pablo Arcon; Adrián G Turjanski; Marcelo A Martí; Stefano Forli
Journal:  Methods Mol Biol       Date:  2021

Review 4.  Software for molecular docking: a review.

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

5.  Computational structural enzymology methodologies for the study and engineering of fatty acid synthases, polyketide synthases and nonribosomal peptide synthetases.

Authors:  Andrew J Schaub; Gabriel O Moreno; Shiji Zhao; Hau V Truong; Ray Luo; Shiou-Chuan Tsai
Journal:  Methods Enzymol       Date:  2019-04-22       Impact factor: 1.600

6.  An integrated approach to knowledge-driven structure-based virtual screening.

Authors:  Angela M Henzler; Sascha Urbaczek; Matthias Hilbig; Matthias Rarey
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2014-07-04       Impact factor: 3.686

7.  Structure Activity Related, Mechanistic, and Modeling Studies of Gallotannins containing a Glucitol-Core and α-Glucosidase.

Authors:  Hang Ma; Ling Wang; Daniel B Niesen; Ang Cai; Bongsup P Cho; Wen Tan; Qiong Gu; Jun Xu; Navindra P Seeram
Journal:  RSC Adv       Date:  2015-12-14       Impact factor: 3.361

8.  Binding mode similarity measures for ranking of docking poses: a case study on the adenosine A2A receptor.

Authors:  Andrew Anighoro; Jürgen Bajorath
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2016-06-22       Impact factor: 3.686

9.  DockBench as docking selector tool: the lesson learned from D3R Grand Challenge 2015.

Authors:  Veronica Salmaso; Mattia Sturlese; Alberto Cuzzolin; Stefano Moro
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2016-09-16       Impact factor: 3.686

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.