Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,566

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Detailed analysis of grid‐based molecular docking: A case study of CDOCKER—A CHARMm‐based MD docking algorithm

Wu, Guosheng, Robertson, Daniel H., Brooks, Charles L., Vieth, Michal·2003·Journal of Computational Chemistry

Abstract

The influence of various factors on the accuracy of protein‐ligand docking is examined. The factors investigated include the role of a grid representation of protein‐ligand interactions, the initial ligand conformation and orientation, the sampling rate of the energy hyper‐surface, and the final minimization. A representative docking method is used to study these factors, namely, CDOCKER, a molecular dynamics (MD) simulated‐annealing‐based algorithm. A major emphasis in these studies is to compare the relative performance and accuracy of various grid‐based approximations to explicit all‐atom force field calculations. In these docking studies, the protein is kept rigid while the ligands are treated as fully flexible and a final minimization step is used to refine the docked poses. A docking success rate of 74% is observed when an explicit all‐atom representation of the protein (full force field) is used, while a lower accuracy of 66–76% is observed for grid‐based methods. All docking experiments considered a 41‐member protein‐ligand validation set. A significant improvement in accuracy (76 vs. 66%) for the grid‐based docking is achieved if the explicit all‐atom force field is used in a final minimization step to refine the docking poses. Statistical analysis shows that even lower‐accuracy grid‐based energy representations can be effectively used when followed with full force field minimization. The results of these grid‐based protocols are statistically indistinguishable from the detailed atomic dockings and provide up to a sixfold reduction in computation time. For the test case examined here, improving the docking accuracy did not necessarily enhance the ability to estimate binding affinities using the docked structures. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Comput Chem 13: 1549–1562, 2003

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jcc.10306

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 1,566

Metadata

Authors
Wu, G., Robertson, D. H., Brooks, C. L., & Vieth, M.
Venue
Journal of Computational Chemistry
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2003-07-30
Volume
24
Issue
13
Pages
1549-1562
ISSN
  • 0192-8651 (ISSN-L)
  • 1096-987X
OpenAlex
W2156053468
Cited by
1,566
References
2
FWCI
8.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Detailed analysis of grid‐based molecular docking: A case study of CDOCKER—A CHARMm‐based MD docking algorithm. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/jcc.10306
The paper
Wu, G., Robertson, D. H., Brooks, C. L., & Vieth, M. (2003). Detailed analysis of grid‐based molecular docking: A case study of CDOCKER—A CHARMm‐based MD docking algorithm. Journal of Computational Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcc.10306

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.