The DOI matches its Crossref record; 53 of the 53 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
GEMDOCK: A generic evolutionary method for molecular docking
Abstract
We have developed an evolutionary approach for flexible ligand docking. This approval, GEMDOCK, uses a Generic Evolutionary Method for molecular DOCKing and an empirical scoring function. The former combines both discrete and continuous global search strategies with local search strategies to speed up convergence, whereas the latter results in rapid recognition of potential ligands. GEMDOCK was tested on a diverse data set of 100 protein–ligand complexes from the Protein Data Bank. In 79% of these complexes, the docked lowest energy ligand structures had root‐mean‐square derivations (RMSDs) below 2.0 Å with respect to the corresponding crystal structures. The success rate increased to 85% if the structure water molecules were retained. We evaluated GEMDOCK on two cross‐docking experiments in which each ligand of a protein ensemble was docked into each protein of the ensemble. Seventy‐six percent of the docked structures had RMSDs below 2.0 Å when the ligands were docked into foreign structures. We analyzed and validated GEMDOCK with respect to various search spaces and scoring functions, and found that if the scoring function was perfect, then the predicted accuracy was also essentially perfect. This study suggests that GEMDOCK is a useful tool for molecular recognition and may be used to systematically evaluate and thus improve scoring functions. Proteins 2004. © 2004 Wiley‐Liss, 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
Genetic algorithms in search, optimization, and machine learning
(1989) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.27-0936 · Cited by 49,010
Storn, R., & Price, K. (1997) · Journal of Global Optimization · doi:10.1023/a:1008202821328 · Cited by 29,569
Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization and Machine Learning
Goldberg, D. E., & Robson, D. (1988) · Cited by 18,391
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
Bäck, T. (1996) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780195099713.001.0001 · Cited by 5,113
A new force field for molecular mechanical simulation of nucleic acids and proteins
Weiner, S. J., Kollman, P. A., Case, D. A., Singh, U. C., Ghio, C., Alagona, G., Profeta, S., & Weiner, P. (1984) · Journal of the American Chemical Society · doi:10.1021/ja00315a051 · Cited by 4,639
A Fast Flexible Docking Method using an Incremental Construction Algorithm
Rarey, M., Kramer, B., Lengauer, T., & Klebe, G. (1996) · Journal of Molecular Biology · doi:10.1006/jmbi.1996.0477 · Cited by 2,827
Evolutionary Computation: Towards a New Philosophy of Machine Intelligence
Fogel, D. B. (1995) · IEEE Press eBooks · Cited by 2,283
A geometric approach to macromolecule-ligand interactions
Kuntz, I. D., Blaney, J. M., Oatley, S. J., Langridge, R., & Ferrin, T. E. (1982) · Journal of Molecular Biology · doi:10.1016/0022-2836(82)90153-x · Cited by 2,278
Eldridge, M. D., Murray, C. W., Auton, T. R., Paolini, G. V., & Mee, R. P. (1997) · Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design · doi:10.1023/a:1007996124545 · Cited by 1,686
Cited by
MolDock: A New Technique for High-Accuracy Molecular Docking
Thomsen, R., & Christensen, M. H. (2006) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm051197e · Cited by 2,327
Key Topics in Molecular Docking for Drug Design
Torres, P. H. M., Sodero, A. C. R., Jofily, P., & Silva-Jr, F. P. (2019) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms20184574 · Cited by 641
Chen, Y.-C. (2015) · Trends in Pharmacological Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tips.2014.12.001 · Cited by 611
In silico methods and tools for drug discovery
Shaker, B., Ahmad, S., Lee, J., Jung, C., & Na, D. (2021) · Computers in Biology and Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.compbiomed.2021.104851 · Cited by 607
Moitessier, N., Englebienne, P., Lee, D., Lawandi, J., & Corbeil, C. R. (2008) · British Journal of Pharmacology · doi:10.1038/sj.bjp.0707515 · Cited by 514
Modeling water molecules in protein-ligand docking using GOLD.
Verdonk, M. L., Chessari, G., Cole, J. C., Hartshorn, M. J., Murray, C. W., Nissink, J. W. M., Taylor, R. D., & Taylor, R. (2005) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm050543p · Cited by 393
Molegro Virtual Docker for Docking
Bitencourt-Ferreira, G., & de Azevedo, W. F. (2019) · Methods in Molecular Biology · doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-9752-7_10 · Cited by 331
Sanjeevini: a freely accessible web-server for target directed lead molecule discovery
Jayaram, B., Singh, T., Mukherjee, G., Mathur, A., Shekhar, S., & Shekhar, V. (2012) · BMC Bioinformatics · doi:10.1186/1471-2105-13-s17-s7 · Cited by 257
Consensus scoring criteria for improving enrichment in virtual screening.
Yang, J.-M., Chen, Y.-F., Shen, T.-W., Kristal, B. S., & Hsu, D. F. (2005) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/ci050034w · Cited by 241
Self-citationNguyen, V. S., Loh, X. Y., Wijaya, H., Wang, J., Lin, Q., Lam, Y., Wong, W.-S. F., & Mok, Y. K. (2015) · Journal of Natural Products · doi:10.1021/np5007179 · Cited by 66
Zeng, J., Zhu, Q., Wu, Y., Chen, H., & Lin, X. (2017) · Chemosphere · doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.07.001 · Cited by 40
Nogueira, K. M. V., Mendes, V., Kamath, K. S., Cheruku, A., Oshiquiri, L. H., de Paula, R. G., Carraro, C., Pedersoli, W. R., Pereira, L. M. S., Vieira, L. C., et al. (2024) · Microbial Cell Factories · doi:10.1186/s12934-023-02279-9 · Cited by 12
Metadata
- Authors
- Yang, J., & Chen, C.
- Venue
- Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2004-02-27
- Volume
- 55
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 288-304
- ISSN
- 0887-3585 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0134
- OpenAlex
- W2126714395
- Cited by
- 687
- References
- 53
- FWCI
- 9.86
- 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.
