The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
General and targeted statistical potentials for protein–ligand interactions
Abstract
We present a novel atom–atom potential derived from a database of protein–ligand complexes. First, we clarify the similarities and differences between two statistical potentials described in the literature, PMF and Drugscore. We highlight shortcomings caused by an important factor unaccounted for in their reference states, and describe a new potential, which we name the Astex Statistical Potential (ASP). ASP's reference state considers the difference in exposure of protein atom types towards ligand binding sites. We show that this new potential predicts binding affinities with an accuracy similar to that of Goldscore and Chemscore. We investigate the influence of the choice of reference state by constructing two additional statistical potentials that differ from ASP only in this respect. The reference states in these two potentials are defined along the lines of Drugscore and PMF. In docking experiments, the potential using the new reference state proposed for ASP gives better success rates than when these literature reference states were used; a success rate similar to the established scoring functions Goldscore and Chemscore is achieved with ASP. This is the case both for a large, general validation set of protein–ligand structures and for small test sets of actives against four pharmaceutically relevant targets. Virtual screening experiments for these targets show less discrimination between the different reference states in terms of enrichment. In addition, we describe how statistical potentials can be used in the construction of targeted scoring functions. Examples are given for cdk2, using four different targeted scoring functions, biased towards increasingly large target‐specific databases. Using these targeted scoring functions, docking success rates as well as enrichments are significantly better than for the general ASP scoring function. Results improve with the number of structures used in the construction of the target scoring functions, thus illustrating that these targeted ASP potentials can be continuously improved as new structural data become available. Proteins 2005. © 2005 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
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
Cited by
Ballester, P. J., & Mitchell, J. B. O. (2010) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btq112 · Cited by 989
Protein–Ligand Scoring with Convolutional Neural Networks
Ragoza, M., Hochuli, J., Idrobo, E., Sunseri, J., & Koes, D. R. (2017) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/acs.jcim.6b00740 · Cited by 774
Salmaso, V., & Moro, S. (2018) · Frontiers in Pharmacology · doi:10.3389/fphar.2018.00923 · Cited by 666
Advances and Challenges in Protein-Ligand Docking
Huang, S.-Y., & Zou, X. (2010) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms11083016 · Cited by 639
Use of molecular docking computational tools in drug discovery
(2021) · Progress in Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1016/bs.pmch.2021.01.004 · Cited by 621
Metadata
- Authors
- Mooij, W. T. M., & Verdonk, M. L.
- Venue
- Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005-08-16
- Volume
- 61
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 272-287
- ISSN
- 0887-3585 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0134
- OpenAlex
- W2158360182
- Cited by
- 368
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 1.57
- 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.