The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Improving scoring-docking-screening powers of protein-ligand scoring functions using random forest
Open accessAbstract
The development of new protein–ligand scoring functions using machine learning algorithms, such as random forest, has been of significant interest. By efficiently utilizing expanded feature sets and a large set of experimental data, random forest based scoring functions (RFbScore) can achieve better correlations to experimental protein–ligand binding data with known crystal structures; however, more extensive tests indicate that such enhancement in scoring power comes with significant under-performance in docking and screening power tests compared to traditional scoring functions. In this work, to improve scoring-docking-screening powers of protein–ligand docking functions simultaneously, we have introduced a ΔvinaRF parameterization and feature selection framework based on random forest. Our developed scoring function ΔvinaRF20, which employs 20 descriptors in addition to the AutoDock Vina score, can achieve superior performance in all power tests of both CASF-2013 and CASF-2007 benchmarks compared to classical scoring functions. The ΔvinaRF20 scoring function and its code are freely available on the web at: https://www.nyu.edu/projects/yzhang/DeltaVina. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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
LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y., & Hinton, G. (2015) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature14539 · Cited by 84,126
Trott, O., & Olson, A. J. (2010) · Journal of Computational Chemistry · doi:10.1002/jcc.21334 · Cited by 38,412
Friesner, R. A., Banks, J. L., Murphy, R. B., Halgren, T. A., Klicic, J. J., Mainz, D. T., Repasky, M. P., Knoll, E. H., Shelley, M., Perry, J. K., et al. (2004) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm0306430 · Cited by 10,057
Machine learning: Trends, perspectives, and prospects
Jordan, M. I., & Mitchell, T. M. (2015) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aaa8415 · Cited by 9,955
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
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
Principles of docking: An overview of search algorithms and a guide to scoring functions
Halperin, I., Ma, B., Wolfson, H., & Nussinov, R. (2002) · Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.10115 · Cited by 1,294
The PDBbind database: methodologies and updates
Wang, R., Fang, X., Lu, Y., Yang, C.-Y., & Wang, S. (2005) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm048957q · Cited by 933
Big Data Meets Quantum Chemistry Approximations: The Δ-Machine Learning Approach
Ramakrishnan, R., Dral, P. O., Rupp, M., & von Lilienfeld, O. A. (2015) · Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation · doi:10.1021/acs.jctc.5b00099 · Cited by 911
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
Huang, S.-Y., Grinter, S. Z., & Zou, X. (2010) · Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics · doi:10.1039/c0cp00151a · Cited by 508
Li, H., Leung, K., Wong, M., & Ballester, P. J. (2015) · Molecular Informatics · doi:10.1002/minf.201400132 · Cited by 252
Beware of machine learning-based scoring functions-on the danger of developing black boxes.
Gabel, J., Desaphy, J., & Rognan, D. (2014) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/ci500406k · Cited by 143
Ding, B., Wang, J., Li, N., & Wang, W. (2013) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/ci300508m · Cited by 45
Cited by
A guide to machine learning for biologists
Greener, J. G., Kandathil, S. M., Moffat, L., & Jones, D. T. (2022) · Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology · doi:10.1038/s41580-021-00407-0 · Cited by 2,127
Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Technology Driven Modern Drug Discovery and Development
Sarkar, C., Das, B., Rawat, V. S., Wahlang, J. B., Nongpiur, A., Tiewsoh, I., Lyngdoh, N. M., Das, D., Bidarolli, M., & Sony, H. T. (2023) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms24032026 · Cited by 347
Guedes, I. A., Pereira, F. S. S., & Dardenne, L. E. (2018) · Frontiers in Pharmacology · doi:10.3389/fphar.2018.01089 · Cited by 331
Blockchain and Artificial Intelligence Technology in E-Health
Tagde, P., Tagde, S., Bhattacharya, T., Tagde, P., Chopra, H., Akter, R., Kaushik, D., & Rahman, M. H. (2021) · Environmental Science and Pollution Research · doi:10.1007/s11356-021-16223-0 · Cited by 281
Uni-Mol: A Universal 3D Molecular Representation Learning Framework
Zhou, G., Gao, Z., Ding, Q., Zheng, H., Xu, H., Wei, Z., Zhang, L., & Ke, G. (2022) · doi:10.26434/chemrxiv-2022-jjm0j · Cited by 81
Metadata
- Authors
- Wang, C., & Zhang, Y.
- Venue
- Journal of Computational Chemistry
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2016-11-17
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 169-177
- ISSN
- 0192-8651 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2550887636
- Cited by
- 334
- References
- 14
- FWCI
- 10.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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.
