Literature DB >> 26651532

LEADS-PEP: A Benchmark Data Set for Assessment of Peptide Docking Performance.

Alexander Sebastian Hauser1, Björn Windshügel1.   

Abstract

With increasing interest in peptide-based therapeutics also the application of computational approaches such as peptide docking has gained more and more attention. In order to assess the suitability of docking programs for peptide placement and to support the development of peptide-specific docking tools, an independently constructed benchmark data set is urgently needed. Here we present the LEADS-PEP benchmark data set for assessing peptide docking performance. Using a rational and unbiased workflow, 53 protein-peptide complexes with peptide lengths ranging from 3 to 12 residues were selected. The data set is publicly accessible at www.leads-x.org . In a second step we evaluated several small molecule docking programs for their potential to reproduce peptide conformations as present in LEADS-PEP. While most tested programs were capable to generate native-like binding modes of small peptides, only Surflex-Dock and AutoDock Vina performed reasonably well for peptides consisting of more than five residues. Rescoring of docking poses with scoring functions ChemPLP, ChemScore, and ASP further increased the number of top-ranked near-native conformations. Our results suggest that small molecule docking programs are a good and fast alternative to specialized peptide docking programs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26651532     DOI: 10.1021/acs.jcim.5b00234

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


  20 in total

1.  Extensive benchmark of rDock as a peptide-protein docking tool.

Authors:  Daniel Soler; Yvonne Westermaier; Robert Soliva
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2019-07-03       Impact factor: 3.686

2.  AutoDock CrankPep: combining folding and docking to predict protein-peptide complexes.

Authors:  Yuqi Zhang; Michel F Sanner
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2019-12-15       Impact factor: 6.937

3.  Predicting Protein-Peptide Complex Structures by Accounting for Peptide Flexibility and the Physicochemical Environment.

Authors:  Xianjin Xu; Xiaoqin Zou
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2021-12-21       Impact factor: 6.162

4.  PepPro: A Nonredundant Structure Data Set for Benchmarking Peptide-Protein Computational Docking.

Authors:  Xianjin Xu; Xiaoqin Zou
Journal:  J Comput Chem       Date:  2019-12-02       Impact factor: 3.376

5.  Protein-peptide docking using CABS-dock and contact information.

Authors:  Maciej Blaszczyk; Maciej Pawel Ciemny; Andrzej Kolinski; Mateusz Kurcinski; Sebastian Kmiecik
Journal:  Brief Bioinform       Date:  2019-11-27       Impact factor: 11.622

6.  Improving Docking Power for Short Peptides Using Random Forest.

Authors:  Michel F Sanner; Leonard Dieguez; Stefano Forli; Ewa Lis
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2021-06-14       Impact factor: 6.162

7.  Discovery of Azurin-Like Anticancer Bacteriocins from Human Gut Microbiome through Homology Modeling and Molecular Docking against the Tumor Suppressor p53.

Authors:  Chuong Nguyen; Van Duy Nguyen
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2016-04-30       Impact factor: 3.411

8.  Efficient conformational ensemble generation of protein-bound peptides.

Authors:  Yumeng Yan; Di Zhang; Sheng-You Huang
Journal:  J Cheminform       Date:  2017-11-22       Impact factor: 5.514

9.  PepComposer: computational design of peptides binding to a given protein surface.

Authors:  Agnieszka Obarska-Kosinska; Alfredo Iacoangeli; Rosalba Lepore; Anna Tramontano
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2016-04-30       Impact factor: 16.971

10.  Lupin Peptides Modulate the Protein-Protein Interaction of PCSK9 with the Low Density Lipoprotein Receptor in HepG2 Cells.

Authors:  Carmen Lammi; Chiara Zanoni; Gilda Aiello; Anna Arnoldi; Giovanni Grazioso
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-07-18       Impact factor: 4.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.