Literature DB >> 23809015

Predicting binding affinity of CSAR ligands using both structure-based and ligand-based approaches.

Denis Fourches1, Eugene Muratov, Feng Ding, Nikolay V Dokholyan, Alexander Tropsha.   

Abstract

We report on the prediction accuracy of ligand-based (2D QSAR) and structure-based (MedusaDock) methods used both independently and in consensus for ranking the congeneric series of ligands binding to three protein targets (UK, ERK2, and CHK1) from the CSAR 2011 benchmark exercise. An ensemble of predictive QSAR models was developed using known binders of these three targets extracted from the publicly available ChEMBL database. Selected models were used to predict the binding affinity of CSAR compounds toward the corresponding targets and rank them accordingly; the overall ranking accuracy evaluated by Spearman correlation was as high as 0.78 for UK, 0.60 for ERK2, and 0.56 for CHK1, placing our predictions in the top 10% among all the participants. In parallel, MedusaDock, designed to predict reliable docking poses, was also used for ranking the CSAR ligands according to their docking scores; the resulting accuracy (Spearman correlation) for UK, ERK2, and CHK1 were 0.76, 0.31, and 0.26, respectively. In addition, performance of several consensus approaches combining MedusaDock- and QSAR-predicted ranks altogether has been explored; the best approach yielded Spearman correlation coefficients for UK, ERK2, and CHK1 of 0.82, 0.50, and 0.45, respectively. This study shows that (i) externally validated 2D QSAR models were capable of ranking CSAR ligands at least as accurately as more computationally intensive structure-based approaches used both by us and by other groups and (ii) ligand-based QSAR models can complement structure-based approaches by boosting the prediction performances when used in consensus.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23809015      PMCID: PMC3779696          DOI: 10.1021/ci400216q

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


  19 in total

1.  Comparative study of several algorithms for flexible ligand docking.

Authors:  Badry D Bursulaya; Maxim Totrov; Ruben Abagyan; Charles L Brooks
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 3.686

2.  On outliers and activity cliffs--why QSAR often disappoints.

Authors:  Gerald M Maggiora
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2006 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 4.956

3.  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

4.  Application of random forest approach to QSAR prediction of aquatic toxicity.

Authors:  Pavel G Polishchuk; Eugene N Muratov; Anatoly G Artemenko; Oleg G Kolumbin; Nail N Muratov; Victor E Kuz'min
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 4.956

Review 5.  Per aspera ad astra: application of Simplex QSAR approach in antiviral research.

Authors:  Eugene N Muratov; Anatoly G Artemenko; Ekaterina V Varlamova; Pavel G Polischuk; Victor P Lozitsky; Alla S Fedchuk; Regina L Lozitska; Tat'yana L Gridina; Ludmila S Koroleva; Vladimir N Sil'nikov; Angel S Galabov; Vadim A Makarov; Olga B Riabova; Peter Wutzler; Michaela Schmidtke; Victor E Kuz'min
Journal:  Future Med Chem       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 3.808

6.  Trust, but verify: on the importance of chemical structure curation in cheminformatics and QSAR modeling research.

Authors:  Denis Fourches; Eugene Muratov; Alexander Tropsha
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2010-07-26       Impact factor: 4.956

Review 7.  SAR, QSAR and docking of anticancer flavonoids and variants: a review.

Authors:  Luciana Scotti; Francisco Jaime Bezerra Mendonça Junior; Diogo Rodrigo Magalhaes Moreira; Marcelo Sobral da Silva; Ivan R Pitta; Marcus Tullius Scotti
Journal:  Curr Top Med Chem       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 3.295

8.  Combined application of cheminformatics- and physical force field-based scoring functions improves binding affinity prediction for CSAR data sets.

Authors:  Jui-Hua Hsieh; Shuangye Yin; Shubin Liu; Alexander Sedykh; Nikolay V Dokholyan; Alexander Tropsha
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2011-08-30       Impact factor: 4.956

9.  2D, 3D-QSAR and docking studies of 1,2,3-thiadiazole thioacetanilides analogues as potent HIV-1 non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors.

Authors:  Shailesh V Jain; Manjunath Ghate; Kamlendra S Bhadoriya; Sanjaykumar B Bari; Amar Chaudhari; Jayshri S Borse
Journal:  Org Med Chem Lett       Date:  2012-06-12

10.  CSAR benchmark exercise 2011-2012: evaluation of results from docking and relative ranking of blinded congeneric series.

Authors:  Kelly L Damm-Ganamet; Richard D Smith; James B Dunbar; Jeanne A Stuckey; Heather A Carlson
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2013-05-10       Impact factor: 4.956

View more
  5 in total

1.  Docking of small molecules to farnesoid X receptors using AutoDock Vina with the Convex-PL potential: lessons learned from D3R Grand Challenge 2.

Authors:  Maria Kadukova; Sergei Grudinin
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2017-09-14       Impact factor: 3.686

Review 2.  Use of bacteriophage to target bacterial surface structures required for virulence: a systematic search for antibiotic alternatives.

Authors:  Paul E Orndorff
Journal:  Curr Genet       Date:  2016-04-25       Impact factor: 3.886

Review 3.  Trust, but Verify II: A Practical Guide to Chemogenomics Data Curation.

Authors:  Denis Fourches; Eugene Muratov; Alexander Tropsha
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2016-06-22       Impact factor: 4.956

4.  Adverse drug reactions triggered by the common HLA-B*57:01 variant: a molecular docking study.

Authors:  George Van Den Driessche; Denis Fourches
Journal:  J Cheminform       Date:  2017-03-04       Impact factor: 5.514

5.  Adverse drug reactions triggered by the common HLA-B*57:01 variant: virtual screening of DrugBank using 3D molecular docking.

Authors:  George Van Den Driessche; Denis Fourches
Journal:  J Cheminform       Date:  2018-01-30       Impact factor: 5.514

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.