The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
An iterative knowledge‐based scoring function to predict protein–ligand interactions: II. Validation of the scoring function
Abstract
We have developed an iterative knowledge‐based scoring function (ITScore) to describe protein–ligand interactions. Here, we assess ITScore through extensive tests on native structure identification, binding affinity prediction, and virtual database screening. Specifically, ITScore was first applied to a test set of 100 protein–ligand complexes constructed by Wang et al. (J Med Chem 2003, 46, 2287), and compared with 14 other scoring functions. The results show that ITScore yielded a high success rate of 82% on identifying native‐like binding modes under the criterion of rmsd ≤2 Å for each top‐ranked ligand conformation. The success rate increased to 98% if the top five conformations were considered for each ligand. In the case of binding affinity prediction, ITScore also obtained a good correlation for this test set (R = 0.65). Next, ITScore was used to predict binding affinities of a second diverse test set of 77 protein–ligand complexes prepared by Muegge and Martin (J Med Chem 1999, 42, 791), and compared with four other widely used knowledge‐based scoring functions. ITScore yielded a high correlation of R2 = 0.65 (or R = 0.81) in the affinity prediction. Finally, enrichment tests were performed with ITScore against four target proteins using the compound databases constructed by Jacobsson et al. (J Med Chem 2003, 46, 5781). The results were compared with those of eight other scoring functions. ITScore yielded high enrichments in all four database screening tests. ITScore can be easily combined with the existing docking programs for the use of structure‐based drug design. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Comput Chem, 2006
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cites
Development and validation of a genetic algorithm for flexible docking 1 1Edited by F. E. Cohen
Jones, G., Willett, P., Glen, R. C., Leach, A. R., & Taylor, R. (1997) · Journal of Molecular Biology · doi:10.1006/jmbi.1996.0897 · Cited by 6,763
Comparative evaluation of 11 scoring functions for molecular docking.
Wang, R., Lu, Y., & Wang, S. (2003) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm0203783 · Cited by 849
Bissantz, C., Folkers, G., & Rognan, D. (2000) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm001044l · Cited by 740
Charifson, P. S., Corkery, J. J., Murcko, M. A., & Walters, W. P. (1999) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm990352k · Cited by 698
Cited by
Huang, S.-Y., Grinter, S. Z., & Zou, X. (2010) · Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics · doi:10.1039/c0cp00151a · Cited by 508
Huang, S., & Zou, X. (2007) · Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.21214 · Cited by 401
Self-citationBinding MOAD (Mother Of All Databases)
Hu, L., Benson, M. L., Smith, R. D., Lerner, M. G., & Carlson, H. A. (2005) · Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.20512 · Cited by 328
Molnar, L. F., He, X., Wang, B., & Merz, K. M. (2009) · The Journal of Chemical Physics · doi:10.1063/1.3173809 · Cited by 123
Targeted scoring functions for virtual screening.
Seifert, M. H. J. (2009) · Drug Discovery Today · doi:10.1016/j.drudis.2009.03.013 · Cited by 76
Metadata
- Authors
- Huang, S., & Zou, X.
- Venue
- Journal of Computational Chemistry
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2006-09-18
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 15
- Pages
- 1876-1882
- ISSN
- 0192-8651 (ISSN-L)
- 1096-987X
- OpenAlex
- W2169562071
- Cited by
- 163
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 6.49
- 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: An iterative knowledge‐based scoring function to predict protein–ligand interactions: II. Validation of the scoring function. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/jcc.20505
- The paper
- Huang, S., & Zou, X. (2006). An iterative knowledge‐based scoring function to predict protein–ligand interactions: II. Validation of the scoring function. Journal of Computational Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcc.20505
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.