The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Ensemble docking of multiple protein structures: Considering protein structural variations in molecular docking
Abstract
One approach to incorporate protein flexibility in molecular docking is the use of an ensemble consisting of multiple protein structures. Sequentially docking each ligand into a large number of protein structures is computationally too expensive to allow large‐scale database screening. It is challenging to achieve a good balance between docking accuracy and computational efficiency. In this work, we have developed a fast, novel docking algorithm utilizing multiple protein structures, referred to as ensemble docking, to account for protein structural variations. The algorithm can simultaneously dock a ligand into an ensemble of protein structures and automatically select an optimal protein structure that best fits the ligand by optimizing both ligand coordinates and the conformational variable m, where m represents the m‐th structure in the protein ensemble. The docking algorithm was validated on 10 protein ensembles containing 105 crystal structures and 87 ligands in terms of binding mode and energy score predictions. A success rate of 93% was obtained with the criterion of root‐mean‐square deviation <2.5 Å if the top five orientations for each ligand were considered, comparable to that of sequential docking in which scores for individual docking are merged into one list by re‐ranking, and significantly better than that of single rigid‐receptor docking (75% on average). Similar trends were also observed in binding score predictions and enrichment tests of virtual database screening. The ensemble docking algorithm is computationally efficient, with a computational time comparable to that for docking a ligand into a single protein structure. In contrast, the computational time for the sequential docking method increases linearly with the number of protein structures in the ensemble. The algorithm was further evaluated using a more realistic ensemble in which the corresponding bound protein structures of inhibitors were excluded. The results show that ensemble docking successfully predicts the binding modes of the inhibitors, and discriminates the inhibitors from a set of noninhibitors with similar chemical properties. Although multiple experimental structures were used in the present work, our algorithm can be easily applied to multiple protein conformations generated by computational methods, and helps improve the efficiency of other existing multiple protein structure(MPS)‐based methods to accommodate protein flexibility. Proteins 2007. © 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
Berman, H. M. (2000) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/28.1.235 · Cited by 40,196
A Simplex Method for Function Minimization
Nelder, J. A., & Mead, R. (1965) · The Computer Journal · doi:10.1093/comjnl/7.4.308 · Cited by 28,905
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
Novel Procedure for Modeling Ligand/Receptor Induced Fit Effects
Sherman, W., Day, T., Jacobson, M. P., Friesner, R. A., & Farid, R. (2006) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm050540c · Cited by 2,031
Abagyan, R., Totrov, M., & Kuznetsov, D. (1994) · Journal of Computational Chemistry · doi:10.1002/jcc.540150503 · Cited by 1,699
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
DOCK 4.0: Search strategies for automated molecular docking of flexible molecule databases
Ewing, T. J. A., Makino, S., Skillman, A. G., & Kuntz, I. D. (2001) · Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design · doi:10.1023/a:1011115820450 · Cited by 1,187
Automated docking with grid‐based energy evaluation
Meng, E. C., Shoichet, B. K., & Kuntz, I. D. (1992) · Journal of Computational Chemistry · doi:10.1002/jcc.540130412 · Cited by 938
Molecular Recognition and Docking Algorithms
Brooijmans, N., & Kuntz, I. D. (2003) · Annual Review of Biophysics and Biomolecular Structure · doi:10.1146/annurev.biophys.32.110601.142532 · Cited by 788
Implications of protein flexibility for drug discovery
Teague, S. J. (2003) · Nature Reviews Drug Discovery · doi:10.1038/nrd1129 · Cited by 755
Cited by
Huang, S.-Y., Grinter, S. Z., & Zou, X. (2010) · Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics · doi:10.1039/c0cp00151a · Cited by 508
Flexible ligand docking to multiple receptor conformations: a practical alternative
Totrov, M., & Abagyan, R. (2008) · Current Opinion in Structural Biology · doi:10.1016/j.sbi.2008.01.004 · Cited by 497
Wei, G., Xi, W., Nussinov, R., & Ma, B. (2016) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.5b00562 · Cited by 436
Binding MOAD (Mother Of All Databases)
Hu, L., Benson, M. L., Smith, R. D., Lerner, M. G., & Carlson, H. A. (2005) · Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.20512 · Cited by 328
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
Metadata
- Authors
- Huang, S., & Zou, X.
- Venue
- Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2006-11-09
- Volume
- 66
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 399-421
- ISSN
- 0887-3585 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0134
- OpenAlex
- W2072180710
- Cited by
- 401
- References
- 45
- FWCI
- 11.96
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Ensemble docking of multiple protein structures: Considering protein structural variations in molecular docking. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/prot.21214
- The paper
- Huang, S., & Zou, X. (2007). Ensemble docking of multiple protein structures: Considering protein structural variations in molecular docking. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics. https://doi.org/10.1002/prot.21214
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.