volume 59 issue 2 pages 895-913

Comparative Assessment of Scoring Functions: The CASF-2016 Update

Minyi Su 1, 2
Qifan Yang 1, 2
Yu Du 1, 2
Guoqin Feng 1, 2
Zhihai Liu 1
Yang Li 1
Renxiao Wang 1, 2, 3
Publication typeJournal Article
Publication date2018-11-27
scimago Q1
wos Q1
SJR1.467
CiteScore9.8
Impact factor5.3
ISSN15499596, 1549960X
General Chemistry
Computer Science Applications
General Chemical Engineering
Library and Information Sciences
Abstract
In structure-based drug design, scoring functions are often employed to evaluate protein-ligand interactions. A variety of scoring functions have been developed so far, and thus, some objective benchmarks are desired for assessing their strength and weakness. The comparative assessment of scoring functions (CASF) benchmark developed by us provides an answer to this demand. CASF is designed as a "scoring benchmark", where the scoring process is decoupled from the docking process to depict the performance of scoring function more precisely. Here, we describe the latest update of this benchmark, i.e., CASF-2016. Each scoring function is still evaluated by four metrics, including "scoring power", "ranking power", "docking power", and "screening power". Nevertheless, the evaluation methods have been improved considerably in several aspects. A new test set is compiled, which consists of 285 protein-ligand complexes with high-quality crystal structures and reliable binding constants. A panel of 25 scoring functions are tested on CASF-2016 as a demonstration. Our results reveal that the performance of current scoring functions is more promising in terms of docking power than scoring, ranking, and screening power. Scoring power is somewhat correlated with ranking power, so are docking power and screening power. The results obtained on CASF-2016 may provide valuable guidance for the end users to make smart choices among available scoring functions. Moreover, CASF is created as an open-access benchmark so that other researchers can utilize it to test a wider range of scoring functions. The complete CASF-2016 benchmark will be released on the PDBbind-CN web server ( http://www.pdbbind-cn.org/casf.asp/ ) once this article is published.
Found 
Found 

Top-30

Journals

10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling
95 publications, 15.47%
Briefings in Bioinformatics
23 publications, 3.75%
Journal of Cheminformatics
17 publications, 2.77%
Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation
15 publications, 2.44%
Bioinformatics
15 publications, 2.44%
Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design
12 publications, 1.95%
Chemical Science
12 publications, 1.95%
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
11 publications, 1.79%
Journal of Medicinal Chemistry
10 publications, 1.63%
ACS Omega
9 publications, 1.47%
Journal of Computational Chemistry
9 publications, 1.47%
Journal of Biomolecular Structure and Dynamics
8 publications, 1.3%
BMC Bioinformatics
8 publications, 1.3%
PLoS ONE
8 publications, 1.3%
Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Molecular Science
8 publications, 1.3%
Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics
8 publications, 1.3%
Methods in Molecular Biology
8 publications, 1.3%
Molecular Informatics
7 publications, 1.14%
Molecules
7 publications, 1.14%
Nature Machine Intelligence
7 publications, 1.14%
Computational Biology and Chemistry
6 publications, 0.98%
Digital Discovery
6 publications, 0.98%
Expert Opinion on Drug Discovery
6 publications, 0.98%
Lecture Notes in Computer Science
6 publications, 0.98%
Nature Communications
6 publications, 0.98%
Drug Discovery Today
5 publications, 0.81%
Frontiers in Pharmacology
5 publications, 0.81%
Scientific Reports
5 publications, 0.81%
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
5 publications, 0.81%
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100

Publishers

20
40
60
80
100
120
140
American Chemical Society (ACS)
138 publications, 22.48%
Springer Nature
105 publications, 17.1%
Elsevier
75 publications, 12.21%
Wiley
51 publications, 8.31%
Oxford University Press
42 publications, 6.84%
Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC)
32 publications, 5.21%
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
31 publications, 5.05%
MDPI
30 publications, 4.89%
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
28 publications, 4.56%
Taylor & Francis
16 publications, 2.61%
Frontiers Media S.A.
14 publications, 2.28%
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
10 publications, 1.63%
Bentham Science Publishers Ltd.
7 publications, 1.14%
IOP Publishing
3 publications, 0.49%
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
2 publications, 0.33%
Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)
2 publications, 0.33%
IntechOpen
2 publications, 0.33%
SAGE
2 publications, 0.33%
American Physical Society (APS)
2 publications, 0.33%
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
2 publications, 0.33%
The Royal Society
1 publication, 0.16%
American Institute of Mathematical Sciences (AIMS)
1 publication, 0.16%
Walter de Gruyter
1 publication, 0.16%
OOO Zhurnal "Mendeleevskie Soobshcheniya"
1 publication, 0.16%
Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET)
1 publication, 0.16%
Research Square Platform LLC
1 publication, 0.16%
Annual Reviews
1 publication, 0.16%
World Scientific
1 publication, 0.16%
AIP Publishing
1 publication, 0.16%
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
  • 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
617
Share
Cite this
GOST |
Cite this
GOST Copy
Su M. et al. Comparative Assessment of Scoring Functions: The CASF-2016 Update // Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling. 2018. Vol. 59. No. 2. pp. 895-913.
GOST all authors (up to 50) Copy
Su M., Yang Q., Du Yu., Feng G., Liu Z., Li Y., Wang R. Comparative Assessment of Scoring Functions: The CASF-2016 Update // Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling. 2018. Vol. 59. No. 2. pp. 895-913.
RIS |
Cite this
RIS Copy
TY - JOUR
DO - 10.1021/acs.jcim.8b00545
UR - https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jcim.8b00545
TI - Comparative Assessment of Scoring Functions: The CASF-2016 Update
T2 - Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling
AU - Su, Minyi
AU - Yang, Qifan
AU - Du, Yu
AU - Feng, Guoqin
AU - Liu, Zhihai
AU - Li, Yang
AU - Wang, Renxiao
PY - 2018
DA - 2018/11/27
PB - American Chemical Society (ACS)
SP - 895-913
IS - 2
VL - 59
PMID - 30481020
SN - 1549-9596
SN - 1549-960X
ER -
BibTex |
Cite this
BibTex (up to 50 authors) Copy
@article{2018_Su,
author = {Minyi Su and Qifan Yang and Yu Du and Guoqin Feng and Zhihai Liu and Yang Li and Renxiao Wang},
title = {Comparative Assessment of Scoring Functions: The CASF-2016 Update},
journal = {Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling},
year = {2018},
volume = {59},
publisher = {American Chemical Society (ACS)},
month = {nov},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jcim.8b00545},
number = {2},
pages = {895--913},
doi = {10.1021/acs.jcim.8b00545}
}
MLA
Cite this
MLA Copy
Su, Minyi, et al. “Comparative Assessment of Scoring Functions: The CASF-2016 Update.” Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, vol. 59, no. 2, Nov. 2018, pp. 895-913. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jcim.8b00545.