Literature DB >> 33759125

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

Olli T Pentikäinen1,2, Pekka A Postila3,4.   

Abstract

Molecular docking produces often lackluster results in real-life virtual screening assays that aim to discover novel drug candidates or hit compounds. The problem lies in the inability of the default docking scoring to properly estimate the Gibbs free energy of binding, which impairs the recognition of the best binding poses and the separation of active ligands from inactive compounds. Negative image-based rescoring (R-NiB) provides both effective and efficient way for re-ranking the outputted flexible docking poses to improve the virtual screening yield. Importantly, R-NiB has been shown to work with multiple genuine drug targets and six popular docking algorithms using demanding benchmark test sets. The effectiveness of the R-NiB methodology relies on the shape/electrostatics similarity between the target protein's ligand-binding cavity and the docked ligand poses. In this chapter, the R-NiB method is described with practical usability in mind.

Keywords:  Cavity detection; Docking rescoring; Flexible molecular docking; Negative image-based rescoring (R-NiB); Virtual screening

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33759125     DOI: 10.1007/978-1-0716-1209-5_8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Methods Mol Biol        ISSN: 1064-3745


  35 in total

1.  Further development and validation of empirical scoring functions for structure-based binding affinity prediction.

Authors:  Renxiao Wang; Luhua Lai; Shaomeng Wang
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 3.686

2.  Comparative evaluation of 11 scoring functions for molecular docking.

Authors:  Renxiao Wang; Yipin Lu; Shaomeng Wang
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2003-06-05       Impact factor: 7.446

3.  Can we trust docking results? Evaluation of seven commonly used programs on PDBbind database.

Authors:  Dariusz Plewczynski; Michał Łaźniewski; Rafał Augustyniak; Krzysztof Ginalski
Journal:  J Comput Chem       Date:  2010-09-01       Impact factor: 3.376

Review 4.  Docking and scoring in virtual screening for drug discovery: methods and applications.

Authors:  Douglas B Kitchen; Hélène Decornez; John R Furr; Jürgen Bajorath
Journal:  Nat Rev Drug Discov       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 84.694

5.  Comparison of shape-matching and docking as virtual screening tools.

Authors:  Paul C D Hawkins; A Geoffrey Skillman; Anthony Nicholls
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2007-01-11       Impact factor: 7.446

6.  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

7.  How to optimize shape-based virtual screening: choosing the right query and including chemical information.

Authors:  Johannes Kirchmair; Simona Distinto; Patrick Markt; Daniela Schuster; Gudrun M Spitzer; Klaus R Liedl; Gerhard Wolber
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 4.956

Review 8.  Molecular docking: a powerful approach for structure-based drug discovery.

Authors:  Xuan-Yu Meng; Hong-Xing Zhang; Mihaly Mezei; Meng Cui
Journal:  Curr Comput Aided Drug Des       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 1.606

9.  Lessons learned in empirical scoring with smina from the CSAR 2011 benchmarking exercise.

Authors:  David Ryan Koes; Matthew P Baumgartner; Carlos J Camacho
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2013-02-12       Impact factor: 4.956

Review 10.  Docking screens: right for the right reasons?

Authors:  Peter Kolb; John J Irwin
Journal:  Curr Top Med Chem       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 3.295

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.