The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Fast docking using the CHARMM force field with EADock DSS
Abstract
The prediction of binding modes (BMs) occurring between a small molecule and a target protein of biological interest has become of great importance for drug development. The overwhelming diversity of needs leaves room for docking approaches addressing specific problems. Nowadays, the universe of docking software ranges from fast and user friendly programs to algorithmically flexible and accurate approaches. EADock2 is an example of the latter. Its multiobjective scoring function was designed around the CHARMM22 force field and the FACTS solvation model. However, the major drawback of such a software design lies in its computational cost. EADock dihedral space sampling (DSS) is built on the most efficient features of EADock2, namely its hybrid sampling engine and multiobjective scoring function. Its performance is equivalent to that of EADock2 for drug‐like ligands, while the CPU time required has been reduced by several orders of magnitude. This huge improvement was achieved through a combination of several innovative features including an automatic bias of the sampling toward putative binding sites, and a very efficient tree‐based DSS algorithm. When the top‐scoring prediction is considered, 57% of BMs of a test set of 251 complexes were reproduced within 2 Å RMSD to the crystal structure. Up to 70% were reproduced when considering the five top scoring predictions. The success rate is lower in cross‐docking assays but remains comparable with that of the latest version of AutoDock that accounts for the protein flexibility. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Comput Chem, 2011
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
Trott, O., & Olson, A. J. (2010) · Journal of Computational Chemistry · doi:10.1002/jcc.21334 · Cited by 38,412
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
ZINC − A Free Database of Commercially Available Compounds for Virtual Screening
Irwin, J. J., & Shoichet, B. K. (2005) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/ci049714+ · Cited by 4,058
A semiempirical free energy force field with charge‐based desolvation
Huey, R., Morris, G. M., Olson, A. J., & Goodsell, D. S. (2007) · Journal of Computational Chemistry · doi:10.1002/jcc.20634 · Cited by 2,246
Cited by
SwissDock, a protein-small molecule docking web service based on EADock DSS
Grosdidier, A., Zoete, V., & Michielin, O. (2011) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkr366 · Cited by 1,950
Self-citationOn-the-fly QM/MM docking with attracting cavities.
Chaskar, P., Zoete, V., & Röhrig, U. F. (2017) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/acs.jcim.6b00406 · Cited by 46
Self-citationCharacterization and Diversification of AraC/XylS Family Regulators Guided by Transposon Sequencing
Pearson, A. N., Incha, M. R., Ho, C. N., Schmidt, M., Roberts, J. B., Nava, A. A., & Keasling, J. D. (2024) · ACS Synthetic Biology · doi:10.1021/acssynbio.3c00441 · Cited by 5
Metadata
- Authors
- Grosdidier, A., Zoete, V., & Michielin, O.
- Venue
- Journal of Computational Chemistry
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-05-03
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 2149-2159
- ISSN
- 0192-8651 (ISSN-L)
- 1096-987X
- OpenAlex
- W2139954389
- Cited by
- 493
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 11.36
- 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
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.