volume 50 issue 2 pages 302-309

Forging the Basis for Developing Protein–Ligand Interaction Scoring Functions

Publication typeJournal Article
Publication date2017-02-09
scimago Q1
wos Q1
SJR5.433
CiteScore30.7
Impact factor17.7
ISSN00014842, 15204898
General Chemistry
General Medicine
Abstract
In structure-based drug design, scoring functions are widely used for fast evaluation of protein-ligand interactions. They are often applied in combination with molecular docking and de novo design methods. Since the early 1990s, a whole spectrum of protein-ligand interaction scoring functions have been developed. Regardless of their technical difference, scoring functions all need data sets combining protein-ligand complex structures and binding affinity data for parametrization and validation. However, data sets of this kind used to be rather limited in terms of size and quality. On the other hand, standard metrics for evaluating scoring function used to be ambiguous. Scoring functions are often tested in molecular docking or even virtual screening trials, which do not directly reflect the genuine quality of scoring functions. Collectively, these underlying obstacles have impeded the invention of more advanced scoring functions. In this Account, we describe our long-lasting efforts to overcome these obstacles, which involve two related projects. On the first project, we have created the PDBbind database. It is the first database that systematically annotates the protein-ligand complexes in the Protein Data Bank (PDB) with experimental binding data. This database has been updated annually since its first public release in 2004. The latest release (version 2016) provides binding data for 16 179 biomolecular complexes in PDB. Data sets provided by PDBbind have been applied to many computational and statistical studies on protein-ligand interaction and various subjects. In particular, it has become a major data resource for scoring function development. On the second project, we have established the Comparative Assessment of Scoring Functions (CASF) benchmark for scoring function evaluation. Our key idea is to decouple the "scoring" process from the "sampling" process, so scoring functions can be tested in a relatively pure context to reflect their quality. In our latest work on this track, i.e. CASF-2013, the performance of a scoring function was quantified in four aspects, including "scoring power", "ranking power", "docking power", and "screening power". All four performance tests were conducted on a test set containing 195 high-quality protein-ligand complexes selected from PDBbind. A panel of 20 standard scoring functions were tested as demonstration. Importantly, CASF is designed to be an open-access benchmark, with which scoring functions developed by different researchers can be compared on the same grounds. Indeed, it has become a popular choice for scoring function validation in recent years. Despite the considerable progress that has been made so far, the performance of today's scoring functions still does not meet people's expectations in many aspects. There is a constant demand for more advanced scoring functions. Our efforts have helped to overcome some obstacles underlying scoring function development so that the researchers in this field can move forward faster. We will continue to improve the PDBbind database and the CASF benchmark in the future to keep them as useful community resources.
Found 
Found 

Top-30

Journals

10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling
72 publications, 18%
Bioinformatics
15 publications, 3.75%
Journal of Cheminformatics
10 publications, 2.5%
Briefings in Bioinformatics
10 publications, 2.5%
Chemical Science
10 publications, 2.5%
Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design
9 publications, 2.25%
ACS Omega
6 publications, 1.5%
Journal of Computational Chemistry
6 publications, 1.5%
Molecules
5 publications, 1.25%
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
5 publications, 1.25%
Scientific Reports
5 publications, 1.25%
Computational Biology and Chemistry
5 publications, 1.25%
Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Molecular Science
5 publications, 1.25%
Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics
5 publications, 1.25%
Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation
5 publications, 1.25%
Journal of Medicinal Chemistry
4 publications, 1%
Current Medicinal Chemistry
4 publications, 1%
Frontiers in Pharmacology
4 publications, 1%
Drug Discovery Today
4 publications, 1%
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
4 publications, 1%
Expert Opinion on Drug Discovery
4 publications, 1%
Journal of Molecular Biology
3 publications, 0.75%
Chemical Physics Letters
3 publications, 0.75%
Journal of Physical Chemistry B
3 publications, 0.75%
Nucleic Acids Research
3 publications, 0.75%
IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics
3 publications, 0.75%
Protein Science
3 publications, 0.75%
Nature Computational Science
3 publications, 0.75%
bioRxiv
3 publications, 0.75%
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80

Publishers

10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
American Chemical Society (ACS)
99 publications, 24.75%
Elsevier
60 publications, 15%
Springer Nature
53 publications, 13.25%
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
40 publications, 10%
Oxford University Press
29 publications, 7.25%
Wiley
27 publications, 6.75%
Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC)
20 publications, 5%
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
20 publications, 5%
MDPI
14 publications, 3.5%
Frontiers Media S.A.
8 publications, 2%
Taylor & Francis
7 publications, 1.75%
Bentham Science Publishers Ltd.
5 publications, 1.25%
IOP Publishing
3 publications, 0.75%
Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)
2 publications, 0.5%
Impact Journals
1 publication, 0.25%
Portland Press
1 publication, 0.25%
Walter de Gruyter
1 publication, 0.25%
OOO Zhurnal "Mendeleevskie Soobshcheniya"
1 publication, 0.25%
Research Square Platform LLC
1 publication, 0.25%
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)
1 publication, 0.25%
Annual Reviews
1 publication, 0.25%
Science in China Press
1 publication, 0.25%
IMR Press
1 publication, 0.25%
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
1 publication, 0.25%
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
402
Share
Cite this
GOST |
Cite this
GOST Copy
Liu Z. et al. Forging the Basis for Developing Protein–Ligand Interaction Scoring Functions // Accounts of Chemical Research. 2017. Vol. 50. No. 2. pp. 302-309.
GOST all authors (up to 50) Copy
Liu Z., Su M., Han L., Liu J., Yang Q., Li Y., Wang R. Forging the Basis for Developing Protein–Ligand Interaction Scoring Functions // Accounts of Chemical Research. 2017. Vol. 50. No. 2. pp. 302-309.
RIS |
Cite this
RIS Copy
TY - JOUR
DO - 10.1021/acs.accounts.6b00491
UR - https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.accounts.6b00491
TI - Forging the Basis for Developing Protein–Ligand Interaction Scoring Functions
T2 - Accounts of Chemical Research
AU - Liu, Zhihai
AU - Su, Minyi
AU - Han, Li
AU - Liu, Jie
AU - Yang, Qifan
AU - Li, Yang
AU - Wang, Renxiao
PY - 2017
DA - 2017/02/09
PB - American Chemical Society (ACS)
SP - 302-309
IS - 2
VL - 50
PMID - 28182403
SN - 0001-4842
SN - 1520-4898
ER -
BibTex |
Cite this
BibTex (up to 50 authors) Copy
@article{2017_Liu,
author = {Zhihai Liu and Minyi Su and Li Han and Jie Liu and Qifan Yang and Yang Li and Renxiao Wang},
title = {Forging the Basis for Developing Protein–Ligand Interaction Scoring Functions},
journal = {Accounts of Chemical Research},
year = {2017},
volume = {50},
publisher = {American Chemical Society (ACS)},
month = {feb},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.accounts.6b00491},
number = {2},
pages = {302--309},
doi = {10.1021/acs.accounts.6b00491}
}
MLA
Cite this
MLA Copy
Liu, Zhihai, et al. “Forging the Basis for Developing Protein–Ligand Interaction Scoring Functions.” Accounts of Chemical Research, vol. 50, no. 2, Feb. 2017, pp. 302-309. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.accounts.6b00491.