Literature DB >> 22569593

Evaluation of DOCK 6 as a pose generation and database enrichment tool.

Scott R Brozell1, Sudipto Mukherjee, Trent E Balius, Daniel R Roe, David A Case, Robert C Rizzo.   

Abstract

In conjunction with the recent American Chemical Society symposium titled "Docking and Scoring: A Review of Docking Programs" the performance of the DOCK6 program was evaluated through (1) pose reproduction and (2) database enrichment calculations on a common set of organizer-specified systems and datasets (ASTEX, DUD, WOMBAT). Representative baseline grid score results averaged over five docking runs yield a relatively high pose identification success rate of 72.5 % (symmetry corrected rmsd) and sampling rate of 91.9 % for the multi site ASTEX set (N = 147) using organizer-supplied structures. Numerous additional docking experiments showed that ligand starting conditions, symmetry, multiple binding sites, clustering, and receptor preparation protocols all affect success. Encouragingly, in some cases, use of more sophisticated scoring and sampling methods yielded results which were comparable (Amber score ligand movable protocol) or exceeded (LMOD score) analogous baseline grid-score results. The analysis highlights the potential benefit and challenges associated with including receptor flexibility and indicates that different scoring functions have system dependent strengths and weaknesses. Enrichment studies with the DUD database prepared using the SB2010 preparation protocol and native ligand pairings yielded individual area under the curve (AUC) values derived from receiver operating characteristic curve analysis ranging from 0.29 (bad enrichment) to 0.96 (good enrichment) with an average value of 0.60 (27/38 have AUC ≥ 0.5). Strong early enrichment was also observed in the critically important 1.0-2.0 % region. Somewhat surprisingly, an alternative receptor preparation protocol yielded comparable results. As expected, semi-random pairings yielded poorer enrichments, in particular, for unrelated receptors. Overall, the breadth and number of experiments performed provide a useful snapshot of current capabilities of DOCK6 as well as starting points to guide future development efforts to further improve sampling and scoring.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22569593      PMCID: PMC3902891          DOI: 10.1007/s10822-012-9565-y

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


  34 in total

1.  Maximum common subgraph isomorphism algorithms for the matching of chemical structures.

Authors:  John W Raymond; Peter Willett
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 3.686

Review 2.  The many roles of computation in drug discovery.

Authors:  William L Jorgensen
Journal:  Science       Date:  2004-03-19       Impact factor: 47.728

Review 3.  Structure-based strategies for drug design and discovery.

Authors:  I D Kuntz
Journal:  Science       Date:  1992-08-21       Impact factor: 47.728

4.  Origins of Resistance Conferred by the R292K Neuraminidase Mutation via Molecular Dynamics and Free Energy Calculations.

Authors:  Ricky Chachra; Robert C Rizzo
Journal:  J Chem Theory Comput       Date:  2008-09-09       Impact factor: 6.006

5.  ZINC--a free database of commercially available compounds for virtual screening.

Authors:  John J Irwin; Brian K Shoichet
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2005 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 4.956

6.  Comparison of multiple Amber force fields and development of improved protein backbone parameters.

Authors:  Viktor Hornak; Robert Abel; Asim Okur; Bentley Strockbine; Adrian Roitberg; Carlos Simmerling
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2006-11-15

7.  Rescoring docking hit lists for model cavity sites: predictions and experimental testing.

Authors:  Alan P Graves; Devleena M Shivakumar; Sarah E Boyce; Matthew P Jacobson; David A Case; Brian K Shoichet
Journal:  J Mol Biol       Date:  2008-01-30       Impact factor: 5.469

8.  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

9.  Validation and use of the MM-PBSA approach for drug discovery.

Authors:  Bernd Kuhn; Paul Gerber; Tanja Schulz-Gasch; Martin Stahl
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2005-06-16       Impact factor: 7.446

10.  Structural basis for inhibition promiscuity of dual specific thrombin and factor Xa blood coagulation inhibitors.

Authors:  H Nar; M Bauer; A Schmid; J M Stassen; W Wienen; H W Priepke; I K Kauffmann; U J Ries; N H Hauel
Journal:  Structure       Date:  2001-01-10       Impact factor: 5.006

View more
  55 in total

1.  Screening of novel inhibitors targeting lactate dehydrogenase A via four molecular docking strategies and dynamics simulations.

Authors:  Rong Sun; Xin Li; Yuanyuan Li; Xun Zhang; Xinru Li; Xiaoyu Li; Zheng Shi; Jinku Bao
Journal:  J Mol Model       Date:  2015-05-02       Impact factor: 1.810

2.  Grid-based molecular footprint comparison method for docking and de novo design: application to HIVgp41.

Authors:  Trent E Balius; William J Allen; Sudipto Mukherjee; Robert C Rizzo
Journal:  J Comput Chem       Date:  2013-02-22       Impact factor: 3.376

3.  Ligand- and receptor-based docking with LiBELa.

Authors:  Heloisa dos Santos Muniz; Alessandro S Nascimento
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2015-07-04       Impact factor: 3.686

4.  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

5.  A consistent description of HYdrogen bond and DEhydration energies in protein-ligand complexes: methods behind the HYDE scoring function.

Authors:  Nadine Schneider; Gudrun Lange; Sally Hindle; Robert Klein; Matthias Rarey
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2012-12-27       Impact factor: 3.686

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.  DOCK 6: Impact of new features and current docking performance.

Authors:  William J Allen; Trent E Balius; Sudipto Mukherjee; Scott R Brozell; Demetri T Moustakas; P Therese Lang; David A Case; Irwin D Kuntz; Robert C Rizzo
Journal:  J Comput Chem       Date:  2015-06-05       Impact factor: 3.376

8.  Identifying selective agonists targeting LXRβ from terpene compounds of alismatis rhizoma.

Authors:  Chuanjiong Lin; Jianzong Li; Chuanfang Wu; Jinku Bao
Journal:  J Mol Model       Date:  2021-02-22       Impact factor: 1.810

9.  Benchmarking methods and data sets for ligand enrichment assessment in virtual screening.

Authors:  Jie Xia; Ermias Lemma Tilahun; Terry-Elinor Reid; Liangren Zhang; Xiang Simon Wang
Journal:  Methods       Date:  2014-12-03       Impact factor: 3.608

10.  FINDSITE(comb): a threading/structure-based, proteomic-scale virtual ligand screening approach.

Authors:  Hongyi Zhou; Jeffrey Skolnick
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2012-12-28       Impact factor: 4.956

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.