Literature DB >> 25682361

Comparing sixteen scoring functions for predicting biological activities of ligands for protein targets.

Weijun Xu1, Andrew J Lucke1, David P Fairlie2.   

Abstract

Accurately predicting relative binding affinities and biological potencies for ligands that interact with proteins remains a significant challenge for computational chemists. Most evaluations of docking and scoring algorithms have focused on enhancing ligand affinity for a protein by optimizing docking poses and enrichment factors during virtual screening. However, there is still relatively limited information on the accuracy of commercially available docking and scoring software programs for correctly predicting binding affinities and biological activities of structurally related inhibitors of different enzyme classes. Presented here is a comparative evaluation of eight molecular docking programs (Autodock Vina, Fitted, FlexX, Fred, Glide, GOLD, LibDock, MolDock) using sixteen docking and scoring functions to predict the rank-order activity of different ligand series for six pharmacologically important protein and enzyme targets (Factor Xa, Cdk2 kinase, Aurora A kinase, COX-2, pla2g2a, β Estrogen receptor). Use of Fitted gave an excellent correlation (Pearson 0.86, Spearman 0.91) between predicted and experimental binding only for Cdk2 kinase inhibitors. FlexX and GOLDScore produced good correlations (Pearson>0.6) for hydrophilic targets such as Factor Xa, Cdk2 kinase and Aurora A kinase. By contrast, pla2g2a and COX-2 emerged as difficult targets for scoring functions to predict ligand activities. Although possessing a high hydrophobicity in its binding site, β Estrogen receptor produced reasonable correlations using LibDock (Pearson 0.75, Spearman 0.68). These findings can assist medicinal chemists to better match scoring functions with ligand-target systems for hit-to-lead optimization using computer-aided drug design approaches.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Drug design; Enzyme inhibitor; Hydrophilic vs hydrophobic targets; Molecular docking; Scoring functions

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25682361     DOI: 10.1016/j.jmgm.2015.01.009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Mol Graph Model        ISSN: 1093-3263            Impact factor:   2.518


  13 in total

1.  Rescoring of docking poses under Occam's Razor: are there simpler solutions?

Authors:  Michael Zhenin; Malkeet Singh Bahia; Gilles Marcou; Alexandre Varnek; Hanoch Senderowitz; Dragos Horvath
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2018-09-01       Impact factor: 3.686

2.  Assessing protein-ligand interaction scoring functions with the CASF-2013 benchmark.

Authors:  Yan Li; Minyi Su; Zhihai Liu; Jie Li; Jie Liu; Li Han; Renxiao Wang
Journal:  Nat Protoc       Date:  2018-03-08       Impact factor: 13.491

3.  Further exploration of the structure-activity relationship of dual soluble epoxide hydrolase/fatty acid amide hydrolase inhibitors.

Authors:  Stephanie Wilt; Sean Kodani; Leah Valencia; Paula K Hudson; Stephanie Sanchez; Taylor Quintana; Christophe Morisseau; Bruce D Hammock; Ram Kandasamy; Stevan Pecic
Journal:  Bioorg Med Chem       Date:  2021-11-11       Impact factor: 3.641

4.  Predicting Accurate Lead Structures for Screening Molecular Libraries: A Quantum Crystallographic Approach.

Authors:  Suman Kumar Mandal; Parthapratim Munshi
Journal:  Molecules       Date:  2021-04-29       Impact factor: 4.411

5.  Tomographic docking suggests the mechanism of auxin receptor TIR1 selectivity.

Authors:  Veselina V Uzunova; Mussa Quareshy; Charo I Del Genio; Richard M Napier
Journal:  Open Biol       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 6.411

6.  Exponential consensus ranking improves the outcome in docking and receptor ensemble docking.

Authors:  Karen Palacio-Rodríguez; Isaias Lans; Claudio N Cavasotto; Pilar Cossio
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-03-26       Impact factor: 4.379

7.  Gain-of-Function Alleles in Caenorhabditis elegans Nuclear Hormone Receptor nhr-49 Are Functionally Distinct.

Authors:  Kayoung Lee; Grace Ying Shyen Goh; Marcus Andrew Wong; Tara Leah Klassen; Stefan Taubert
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-09-12       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Continuous microfluidic assortment of interactive ligands (CMAIL).

Authors:  Yi-Hsing Hsiao; Chao-Yang Huang; Chih-Yung Hu; Yen-Yu Wu; Chung-Hsiun Wu; Chia-Hsien Hsu; Chihchen Chen
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-08-31       Impact factor: 4.379

9.  vSDC: a method to improve early recognition in virtual screening when limited experimental resources are available.

Authors:  Ludovic Chaput; Juan Martinez-Sanz; Eric Quiniou; Pascal Rigolet; Nicolas Saettel; Liliane Mouawad
Journal:  J Cheminform       Date:  2016-01-18       Impact factor: 5.514

10.  Correlation between Virtual Screening Performance and Binding Site Descriptors of Protein Targets.

Authors:  Jamal Shamsara
Journal:  Int J Med Chem       Date:  2018-01-11
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.