The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Protein–ligand docking: Current status and future challenges
Abstract
Understanding the ruling principles whereby protein receptors recognize, interact, and associate with molecular substrates and inhibitors is of paramount importance in drug discovery efforts. Protein–ligand docking aims to predict and rank the structure(s) arising from the association between a given ligand and a target protein of known 3D structure. Despite the breathtaking advances in the field over the last decades and the widespread application of docking methods, several downsides still exist. In particular, protein flexibility—a critical aspect for a thorough understanding of the principles that guide ligand binding in proteins—is a major hurdle in current protein–ligand docking efforts that needs to be more efficiently accounted for. In this review the key concepts of protein–ligand docking methods are outlined, with major emphasis being given to the general strengths and weaknesses that presently characterize this methodology. Despite the size of the field, the principal types of search algorithms and scoring functions are reviewed and the most popular docking tools are briefly depicted. Recent advances that aim to address some of the traditional limitations associated with molecular docking are also described. A selection of hand‐picked examples is used to illustrate these features. Proteins 2006. © 2006 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
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
Implications of protein flexibility for drug discovery
Teague, S. J. (2003) · Nature Reviews Drug Discovery · doi:10.1038/nrd1129 · Cited by 755
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
Comparative evaluation of eight docking tools for docking and virtual screening accuracy
Kellenberger, E., Rodrigo, J., Muller, P., & Rognan, D. (2004) · Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.20149 · Cited by 577
Cited by
Trott, O., & Olson, A. J. (2010) · Journal of Computational Chemistry · doi:10.1002/jcc.21334 · Cited by 38,412
AutoDock4 and AutoDockTools4: Automated docking with selective receptor flexibility
Morris, G. M., Huey, R., Lindstrom, W., Sanner, M. F., Belew, R. K., Goodsell, D. S., & Olson, A. J. (2009) · Journal of Computational Chemistry · doi:10.1002/jcc.21256 · Cited by 25,486
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
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
Albericio, F., & Kruger, H. G. (2012) · Future Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.4155/fmc.12.94 · Cited by 307
Docking Challenge: Protein Sampling and Molecular Docking Performance
Elokely, K. M., & Doerksen, R. J. (2013) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/ci400040d · Cited by 287
Ouyang, X., Zhou, S., Su, C. T. T., Ge, Z., Li, R., & Kwoh, C. K. (2013) · Journal of Computational Chemistry · doi:10.1002/jcc.23136 · Cited by 134
Predicting the accuracy of protein–ligand docking on homology models
Bordogna, A., Pandini, A., & Bonati, L. (2011) · Journal of Computational Chemistry · doi:10.1002/jcc.21601 · Cited by 107
Costache, A. D., Sheihet, L., Zaveri, K., Knight, D. D., & Kohn, J. (2009) · Molecular Pharmaceutics · doi:10.1021/mp900114w · Cited by 79
Forli, S., & Botta, M. (2007) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/ci700036j · Cited by 58
Zheng, Z., Dutton, P. L., & Gunner, M. R. (2010) · Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.22779 · Cited by 13
Metadata
- Authors
- Sousa, S. F., Fernandes, P. A., & Ramos, M. J.
- Venue
- Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2006-07-21
- Volume
- 65
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 15-26
- ISSN
- 0887-3585 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0134
- OpenAlex
- W2152964937
- Cited by
- 1,004
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 48.18
- 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.
