Literature DB >> 22569592

Lead Finder docking and virtual screening evaluation with Astex and DUD test sets.

Fedor N Novikov1, Viktor S Stroylov, Alexey A Zeifman, Oleg V Stroganov, Val Kulkov, Ghermes G Chilov.   

Abstract

Lead Finder is a molecular docking software. Sampling uses an original implementation of the genetic algorithm that involves a number of additional optimization procedures. Lead Finder's scoring functions employ a set of semi-empiric molecular mechanics functionals that have been parameterized independently for docking, binding energy predictions and rank-ordering for virtual screening. Sampling and scoring both utilize a staged approach, moving from fast but less accurate algorithm versions to computationally more intensive but more accurate versions. Lead Finder includes tools for the preparation of full atom protein and ligand models. In this exercise, Lead Finder achieved 72.9% docking success rate on the Astex test set when the original author-prepared full atom models were used, and 74.1% success rate when the structures were prepared by Lead Finder. The major cause of docking failures were scoring errors resulting from the use of imperfect solvation models. In many cases, docking errors could be corrected by the proper protonation and the use of correct cyclic conformations of ligands. In virtual screening experiments on the DUD test set the early enrichment factor of several tens was achieved on average. However, the area under the ROC curve ("AUC ROC") ranged from 0.70 to 0.74 depending on the screening protocol used, and the separation from the null model was not perfect-0.12-0.15 units of AUC ROC. We assume that effective virtual screening in the whole range of enrichment curve and not just at the early enrichment stages requires more accurate solvation modeling and accounting for the protein backbone flexibility.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22569592     DOI: 10.1007/s10822-012-9549-y

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


  13 in total

1.  Can we trust docking results? Evaluation of seven commonly used programs on PDBbind database.

Authors:  Dariusz Plewczynski; Michał Łaźniewski; Rafał Augustyniak; Krzysztof Ginalski
Journal:  J Comput Chem       Date:  2010-09-01       Impact factor: 3.376

2.  A critical assessment of docking programs and scoring functions.

Authors:  Gregory L Warren; C Webster Andrews; Anna-Maria Capelli; Brian Clarke; Judith LaLonde; Millard H Lambert; Mika Lindvall; Neysa Nevins; Simon F Semus; Stefan Senger; Giovanna Tedesco; Ian D Wall; James M Woolven; Catherine E Peishoff; Martha S Head
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2006-10-05       Impact factor: 7.446

3.  Diverse, high-quality test set for the validation of protein-ligand docking performance.

Authors:  Michael J Hartshorn; Marcel L Verdonk; Gianni Chessari; Suzanne C Brewerton; Wijnand T M Mooij; Paul N Mortenson; Christopher W Murray
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2007-02-22       Impact factor: 7.446

4.  Optimization of CAMD techniques 3. Virtual screening enrichment studies: a help or hindrance in tool selection?

Authors:  Andrew C Good; Tudor I Oprea
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2008-01-09       Impact factor: 3.686

5.  Lead finder: an approach to improve accuracy of protein-ligand docking, binding energy estimation, and virtual screening.

Authors:  Oleg V Stroganov; Fedor N Novikov; Viktor S Stroylov; Val Kulkov; Ghermes G Chilov
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 4.956

6.  Improving performance of docking-based virtual screening by structural filtration.

Authors:  Fedor N Novikov; Viktor S Stroylov; Oleg V Stroganov; Ghermes G Chilov
Journal:  J Mol Model       Date:  2009-12-30       Impact factor: 1.810

7.  TSAR, a new graph-theoretical approach to computational modeling of protein side-chain flexibility: modeling of ionization properties of proteins.

Authors:  Oleg V Stroganov; Fedor N Novikov; Alexey A Zeifman; Viktor S Stroylov; Ghermes G Chilov
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2011-07-18

8.  CSAR scoring challenge reveals the need for new concepts in estimating protein-ligand binding affinity.

Authors:  Fedor N Novikov; Alexey A Zeifman; Oleg V Stroganov; Viktor S Stroylov; Val Kulkov; Ghermes G Chilov
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2011-06-03       Impact factor: 4.956

9.  Developing novel approaches to improve binding energy estimation and virtual screening: a PARP case study.

Authors:  Fedor N Novikov; Viktor S Stroylov; Oleg V Stroganov; Val Kulkov; Ghermes G Chilov
Journal:  J Mol Model       Date:  2009-04-16       Impact factor: 1.810

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
  10 in total

1.  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

2.  Directory of useful decoys, enhanced (DUD-E): better ligands and decoys for better benchmarking.

Authors:  Michael M Mysinger; Michael Carchia; John J Irwin; Brian K Shoichet
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2012-07-05       Impact factor: 7.446

3.  Knowledge-guided docking: accurate prospective prediction of bound configurations of novel ligands using Surflex-Dock.

Authors:  Ann E Cleves; Ajay N Jain
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2015-05-05       Impact factor: 3.686

4.  Bifunctional Inhibitors of Influenza Virus Neuraminidase: Molecular Design of a Sulfonamide Linker.

Authors:  Sergei Evteev; Dmitry Nilov; Aleksandra Polenova; Vytas Švedas
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2021-12-03       Impact factor: 5.923

5.  Network Analysis Guided Designing of Multi-Targeted Anti-Fungal Agents: Synthesis and Biological Evaluation.

Authors:  Manmeet Singh; Himanshu Verma; Priyanka Bhandu; Manoj Kumar; Gera Narendra; Shalki Choudhary; Pankaj Kumar Singh; Om Silakari
Journal:  J Mol Struct       Date:  2022-09-09       Impact factor: 3.841

6.  Design, Synthesis, and Molecular Docking Study of New Tyrosyl-DNA Phosphodiesterase 1 (TDP1) Inhibitors Combining Resin Acids and Adamantane Moieties.

Authors:  Kseniya Kovaleva; Olga Yarovaya; Konstantin Ponomarev; Sergey Cheresiz; Amirhossein Azimirad; Irina Chernyshova; Alexandra Zakharenko; Vasily Konev; Tatiana Khlebnikova; Evgenii Mozhaytsev; Evgenii Suslov; Dmitry Nilov; Vytas Švedas; Andrey Pokrovsky; Olga Lavrik; Nariman Salakhutdinov
Journal:  Pharmaceuticals (Basel)       Date:  2021-05-01

7.  Integration of ligand-based drug screening with structure-based drug screening by combining maximum volume overlapping score with ligand docking.

Authors:  Yoshifumi Fukunishi; Haruki Nakamura
Journal:  Pharmaceuticals (Basel)       Date:  2012-12-04

8.  An unbiased method to build benchmarking sets for ligand-based virtual screening and its application to GPCRs.

Authors:  Jie Xia; Hongwei Jin; Zhenming Liu; Liangren Zhang; Xiang Simon Wang
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2014-05-01       Impact factor: 4.956

9.  Attracting cavities for docking. Replacing the rough energy landscape of the protein by a smooth attracting landscape.

Authors:  Vincent Zoete; Thierry Schuepbach; Christophe Bovigny; Prasad Chaskar; Antoine Daina; Ute F Röhrig; Olivier Michielin
Journal:  J Comput Chem       Date:  2015-11-12       Impact factor: 3.376

10.  An Efficient Implementation of the Nwat-MMGBSA Method to Rescore Docking Results in Medium-Throughput Virtual Screenings.

Authors:  Irene Maffucci; Xiao Hu; Valentina Fumagalli; Alessandro Contini
Journal:  Front Chem       Date:  2018-03-05       Impact factor: 5.221

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.