A detailed comparison of current docking and scoring methods on systems of pharmaceutical relevance
1
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, Cambridge, Massachusetts
|
Publication type: Journal Article
Publication date: 2004-04-28
scimago Q1
wos Q2
SJR: 1.400
CiteScore: 7.2
Impact factor: 2.8
ISSN: 08873585, 10970134
PubMed ID:
15211508
Biochemistry
Molecular Biology
Structural Biology
Abstract
A thorough evaluation of some of the most advanced docking and scoring methods currently available is described, and guidelines for the choice of an appropriate protocol for docking and virtual screening are defined. The generation of a large and highly curated test set of pharmaceutically relevant protein-ligand complexes with known binding affinities is described, and three highly regarded docking programs (Glide, GOLD, and ICM) are evaluated on the same set with respect to their ability to reproduce crystallographic binding orientations. Glide correctly identified the crystallographic pose within 2.0 A in 61% of the cases, versus 48% for GOLD and 45% for ICM. In general Glide appears to perform most consistently with respect to diversity of binding sites and ligand flexibility, while the performance of ICM and GOLD is more binding site-dependent and it is significantly poorer when binding is predominantly driven by hydrophobic interactions. The results also show that energy minimization and reranking of the top N poses can be an effective means to overcome some of the limitations of a given docking function. The same docking programs are evaluated in conjunction with three different scoring functions for their ability to discriminate actives from inactives in virtual screening. The evaluation, performed on three different systems (HIV-1 protease, IMPDH, and p38 MAP kinase), confirms that the relative performance of different docking and scoring methods is to some extent binding site-dependent. GlideScore appears to be an effective scoring function for database screening, with consistent performance across several types of binding sites, while ChemScore appears to be most useful in sterically demanding sites since it is more forgiving of repulsive interactions. Energy minimization of docked poses can significantly improve the enrichments in systems with sterically demanding binding sites. Overall Glide appears to be a safe general choice for docking, while the choice of the best scoring tool remains to a larger extent system-dependent and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Found
Nothing found, try to update filter.
Found
Nothing found, try to update filter.
Top-30
Journals
|
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
|
|
|
Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling
61 publications, 16.62%
|
|
|
Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design
29 publications, 7.9%
|
|
|
Journal of Medicinal Chemistry
24 publications, 6.54%
|
|
|
Proteins: Structure, Function and Genetics
17 publications, 4.63%
|
|
|
Journal of Molecular Graphics and Modelling
11 publications, 3%
|
|
|
Journal of Computational Chemistry
9 publications, 2.45%
|
|
|
Journal of Biomolecular Structure and Dynamics
7 publications, 1.91%
|
|
|
Methods in Molecular Biology
6 publications, 1.63%
|
|
|
Molecules
5 publications, 1.36%
|
|
|
Expert Opinion on Drug Discovery
5 publications, 1.36%
|
|
|
Journal of Chemical Physics
4 publications, 1.09%
|
|
|
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
4 publications, 1.09%
|
|
|
PLoS ONE
4 publications, 1.09%
|
|
|
Bioorganic and Medicinal Chemistry
4 publications, 1.09%
|
|
|
Drug Discovery Today
4 publications, 1.09%
|
|
|
Future Medicinal Chemistry
3 publications, 0.82%
|
|
|
Journal of Molecular Biology
3 publications, 0.82%
|
|
|
ChemMedChem
3 publications, 0.82%
|
|
|
In Silico Pharmacology
2 publications, 0.54%
|
|
|
Journal of Molecular Modeling
2 publications, 0.54%
|
|
|
Journal of Cheminformatics
2 publications, 0.54%
|
|
|
Nature Protocols
2 publications, 0.54%
|
|
|
Algorithms for Molecular Biology
2 publications, 0.54%
|
|
|
PLoS Computational Biology
2 publications, 0.54%
|
|
|
European Journal of Medicinal Chemistry
2 publications, 0.54%
|
|
|
Current Opinion in Chemical Biology
2 publications, 0.54%
|
|
|
Bioorganic and Medicinal Chemistry Letters
2 publications, 0.54%
|
|
|
Molecular Informatics
2 publications, 0.54%
|
|
|
Chemical Biology and Drug Design
2 publications, 0.54%
|
|
|
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
|
Publishers
|
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
|
|
|
American Chemical Society (ACS)
96 publications, 26.16%
|
|
|
Springer Nature
69 publications, 18.8%
|
|
|
Wiley
55 publications, 14.99%
|
|
|
Elsevier
55 publications, 14.99%
|
|
|
Taylor & Francis
16 publications, 4.36%
|
|
|
MDPI
12 publications, 3.27%
|
|
|
Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC)
8 publications, 2.18%
|
|
|
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
6 publications, 1.63%
|
|
|
AIP Publishing
4 publications, 1.09%
|
|
|
Bentham Science Publishers Ltd.
3 publications, 0.82%
|
|
|
Cambridge University Press
3 publications, 0.82%
|
|
|
American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics
2 publications, 0.54%
|
|
|
Pharmaceutical Society of Japan
2 publications, 0.54%
|
|
|
Oxford University Press
2 publications, 0.54%
|
|
|
American Society for Microbiology
2 publications, 0.54%
|
|
|
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
2 publications, 0.54%
|
|
|
Beilstein-Institut
1 publication, 0.27%
|
|
|
SAGE
1 publication, 0.27%
|
|
|
King Saud University
1 publication, 0.27%
|
|
|
American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
1 publication, 0.27%
|
|
|
Pleiades Publishing
1 publication, 0.27%
|
|
|
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
1 publication, 0.27%
|
|
|
Scientific Research Publishing
1 publication, 0.27%
|
|
|
Fund Doctors, Innovations, Science for Children
1 publication, 0.27%
|
|
|
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)
1 publication, 0.27%
|
|
|
IGI Global
1 publication, 0.27%
|
|
|
IntechOpen
1 publication, 0.27%
|
|
|
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
1 publication, 0.27%
|
|
|
American Association for Cancer Research (AACR)
1 publication, 0.27%
|
|
|
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
|
- We do not take into account publications without a DOI.
- Statistics recalculated weekly.
Are you a researcher?
Create a profile to get free access to personal recommendations for colleagues and new articles.
Metrics
367
Total citations:
367
Citations from 2024:
8
(2.18%)
Cite this
GOST |
RIS |
BibTex |
MLA
Cite this
GOST
Copy
Perola E., Walters W. P., Charifson P. S. A detailed comparison of current docking and scoring methods on systems of pharmaceutical relevance // Proteins: Structure, Function and Genetics. 2004. Vol. 56. No. 2. pp. 235-249.
GOST all authors (up to 50)
Copy
Perola E., Walters W. P., Charifson P. S. A detailed comparison of current docking and scoring methods on systems of pharmaceutical relevance // Proteins: Structure, Function and Genetics. 2004. Vol. 56. No. 2. pp. 235-249.
Cite this
RIS
Copy
TY - JOUR
DO - 10.1002/prot.20088
UR - https://doi.org/10.1002/prot.20088
TI - A detailed comparison of current docking and scoring methods on systems of pharmaceutical relevance
T2 - Proteins: Structure, Function and Genetics
AU - Perola, Emanuele
AU - Walters, W Patrick
AU - Charifson, Paul S
PY - 2004
DA - 2004/04/28
PB - Wiley
SP - 235-249
IS - 2
VL - 56
PMID - 15211508
SN - 0887-3585
SN - 1097-0134
ER -
Cite this
BibTex (up to 50 authors)
Copy
@article{2004_Perola,
author = {Emanuele Perola and W Patrick Walters and Paul S Charifson},
title = {A detailed comparison of current docking and scoring methods on systems of pharmaceutical relevance},
journal = {Proteins: Structure, Function and Genetics},
year = {2004},
volume = {56},
publisher = {Wiley},
month = {apr},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/prot.20088},
number = {2},
pages = {235--249},
doi = {10.1002/prot.20088}
}
Cite this
MLA
Copy
Perola, Emanuele, et al. “A detailed comparison of current docking and scoring methods on systems of pharmaceutical relevance.” Proteins: Structure, Function and Genetics, vol. 56, no. 2, Apr. 2004, pp. 235-249. https://doi.org/10.1002/prot.20088.