Literature DB >> 27108770

Comprehensive evaluation of ten docking programs on a diverse set of protein-ligand complexes: the prediction accuracy of sampling power and scoring power.

Zhe Wang1, Huiyong Sun, Xiaojun Yao, Dan Li, Lei Xu, Youyong Li, Sheng Tian, Tingjun Hou.   

Abstract

As one of the most popular computational approaches in modern structure-based drug design, molecular docking can be used not only to identify the correct conformation of a ligand within the target binding pocket but also to estimate the strength of the interaction between a target and a ligand. Nowadays, as a variety of docking programs are available for the scientific community, a comprehensive understanding of the advantages and limitations of each docking program is fundamentally important to conduct more reasonable docking studies and docking-based virtual screening. In the present study, based on an extensive dataset of 2002 protein-ligand complexes from the PDBbind database (version 2014), the performance of ten docking programs, including five commercial programs (LigandFit, Glide, GOLD, MOE Dock, and Surflex-Dock) and five academic programs (AutoDock, AutoDock Vina, LeDock, rDock, and UCSF DOCK), was systematically evaluated by examining the accuracies of binding pose prediction (sampling power) and binding affinity estimation (scoring power). Our results showed that GOLD and LeDock had the best sampling power (GOLD: 59.8% accuracy for the top scored poses; LeDock: 80.8% accuracy for the best poses) and AutoDock Vina had the best scoring power (rp/rs of 0.564/0.580 and 0.569/0.584 for the top scored poses and best poses), suggesting that the commercial programs did not show the expected better performance than the academic ones. Overall, the ligand binding poses could be identified in most cases by the evaluated docking programs but the ranks of the binding affinities for the entire dataset could not be well predicted by most docking programs. However, for some types of protein families, relatively high linear correlations between docking scores and experimental binding affinities could be achieved. To our knowledge, this study has been the most extensive evaluation of popular molecular docking programs in the last five years. It is expected that our work can offer useful information for the successful application of these docking tools to different requirements and targets.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27108770     DOI: 10.1039/c6cp01555g

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Phys Chem Chem Phys        ISSN: 1463-9076            Impact factor:   3.676


  146 in total

1.  Proteasome-associated cysteine deubiquitinases are molecular targets of environmental optical brightener compounds.

Authors:  Isel Castro; Elmira Ekinci; Xuemei Huang; Hassan Ali Cheaito; Young-Hoon Ahn; Jesus Olivero-Verbel; Q Ping Dou
Journal:  J Cell Biochem       Date:  2019-04-08       Impact factor: 4.429

2.  Novel proteases from the genome of the carnivorous plant Drosera capensis: Structural prediction and comparative analysis.

Authors:  Carter T Butts; Jan C Bierma; Rachel W Martin
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2016-07-13

3.  Evaluating the performance of MM/PBSA for binding affinity prediction using class A GPCR crystal structures.

Authors:  Mei Qian Yau; Abigail L Emtage; Nathaniel J Y Chan; Stephen W Doughty; Jason S E Loo
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2019-04-15       Impact factor: 3.686

Review 4.  Automated Modeling and Validation of Protein Complexes in Cryo-EM Maps.

Authors:  Tristan Cragnolini; Aaron Sweeney; Maya Topf
Journal:  Methods Mol Biol       Date:  2021

5.  Negative Image-Based Rescoring: Using Cavity Information to Improve Docking Screening.

Authors:  Olli T Pentikäinen; Pekka A Postila
Journal:  Methods Mol Biol       Date:  2021

6.  Negative Image-Based Screening: Rigid Docking Using Cavity Information.

Authors:  Pekka A Postila; Sami T Kurkinen; Olli T Pentikäinen
Journal:  Methods Mol Biol       Date:  2021

Review 7.  Software for molecular docking: a review.

Authors:  Nataraj S Pagadala; Khajamohiddin Syed; Jack Tuszynski
Journal:  Biophys Rev       Date:  2017-01-16

8.  Integrating docking scores and key interaction profiles to improve the accuracy of molecular docking: towards novel B-RafV600E inhibitors.

Authors:  Chun-Qi Hu; Kang Li; Ting-Ting Yao; Yong-Zhou Hu; Hua-Zhou Ying; Xiao-Wu Dong
Journal:  Medchemcomm       Date:  2017-07-24       Impact factor: 3.597

9.  Assessing the performance of docking scoring function, FEP, MM-GBSA, and QM/MM-GBSA approaches on a series of PLK1 inhibitors.

Authors:  Chunlan Pu; Guoyi Yan; Jianyou Shi; Rui Li
Journal:  Medchemcomm       Date:  2017-05-22       Impact factor: 3.597

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.