Cited by 6,763Computational Drug Discovery MethodsProtein Structure and DynamicsProtein Interaction Studies and Fluorescence Analysis

Development and validation of a genetic algorithm for flexible docking 1 1Edited by F. E. Cohen

Jones, Gareth, Willett, Peter, Glen, Robert C, Leach, Andrew R, Taylor, Robin·1997·Journal of Molecular Biology

Abstract

Prediction of small molecule binding modes to macromolecules of known three-dimensional structure is a problem of paramount importance in rational drug design (the "docking" problem). We report the development and validation of the program GOLD (Genetic Optimisation for Ligand Docking). GOLD is an automated ligand docking program that uses a genetic algorithm to explore the full range of ligand conformational flexibility with partial flexibility of the protein, and satisfies the fundamental requirement that the ligand must displace loosely bound water on binding. Numerous enhancements and modifications have been applied to the original technique resulting in a substantial increase in the reliability and the applicability of the algorithm. The advanced algorithm has been tested on a dataset of 100 complexes extracted from the Brookhaven Protein DataBank. When used to dock the ligand back into the binding site, GOLD achieved a 71% success rate in identifying the experimental binding mode.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1006/jmbi.1996.0897

Cites

87 of 87 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • GOLD, Autodock4, CovalentDock, CovDock, DOCKovalent, and DOCK-TITE are examples of docking programs that developed specific methodologies to deal with covalent docking.

    “GOLD (Jones et al., 1997), Autodock4 (Bianco et al., 2016), CovalentDock (Ouyang et al., 2013), CovDock (Zhu et al., 2014), DOCKovalent (London et al., 2014), and DOCK-TITE (Scholz et al., 2015) are some examples of docking programs that developed specific methodologies to deal with covalent-docking.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jones, G., Willett, P., Glen, R. C., Leach, A. R., & Taylor, R.
Affiliations
  • University of Sheffield (GB)
  • Wellcome Trust (GB)
  • Cambridge Crystallographic Data Centre (GB)
Corresponding author
Jones, Gareth
Venue
Journal of Molecular Biology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1997-04
Volume
267
Issue
3
Pages
727-748
ISSN
0022-2836 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2050456292
Cited by
6,763
References
87
Citations by year
2026: 244 · 2025: 332 · 2024: 356 · 2023: 361 · 2022: 383 · 2021: 414 · 2020: 394 · 2019: 351 · 2018: 327 · 2017: 270 · 2016: 248 · 2015: 234 · 2014: 237 · 2013: 248 · 2012: 274
Type
book review
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Molecular Biology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Structure and Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Interaction Studies and Fluorescence Analysis
Keywords
protein-ligand docking, genetic algorithm, flexible docking, protein-ligand complex, ligand conformational flexibility, rational drug design, binding mode prediction
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Binding Sites, Computer Simulation, Humans, Ligands, Models, Genetic, Models, Molecular, NADP, Protein Binding, Protein Conformation, Proteins, Tetrahydrofolate Dehydrogenase, Crystallography, X-Ray

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