Cited by 23Computational Drug Discovery MethodsCrystallography and molecular interactionsAdvanced Chemical Physics Studies

A quantum mechanics-based halogen bonding scoring function for protein-ligand interactions.

Yang, Zhuo, Liu, Yingtao, Chen, Zhaoqiang, Xu, Zhijian, Shi, Jiye, Chen, Kaixian, Zhu, Weiliang·2015·Journal of Molecular Modeling

Abstract

A quantum mechanics-based scoring function for halogen bonding interaction, namely XBScore(QM), is developed based on 18,135 sets of geometrical and energetical parameters optimized at M06-2X/aug-cc-pVDZ level. Applying the function on typical halogen bonding systems from Protein Data Bank demonstrates its strong ability of predicting halogen bonding as attractive interaction with strength up to -4 kcal mol(-1). With a diverse set of proteins complexed with halogenated ligands, a systematic evaluation demonstrates the integrative advantage of XBScore(QM) over 12 other scoring functions on halogen bonding in four aspects, viz. pseudo docking power, ranking power, scoring power, and genuine docking power. Thus, this study not only provides a practicable scoring function of halogen bonding for high throughput virtual screening, but also serves as a benchmark for evaluating the performance of current scoring functions on characterizing halogen bonding.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00894-015-2681-6

Cites

99 of 99 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?

  • The XBScoreQM scoring function achieved good performance on both pose and affinity prediction when compared against 12 diverse scoring functions and increased predictive capacity for protein-ligand complexes with X-bond interactions.

    “The new scoring function achieved good performances on both pose and affinity prediction when compared against 12 diverse scoring functions, and increase predictive capacity to deal with protein–ligand complexes with X-bond interactions.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yang, Z., Liu, Y., Chen, Z., Xu, Z., Shi, J., Chen, K., & Zhu, W.
Affiliations
  • Chinese Academy of Sciences (CN)
  • UCB Pharma (United Kingdom) (GB)
Corresponding author
Zhu, Weiliang
Venue
Journal of Molecular Modeling
Published
2015-05-10
Volume
21
Issue
6
Pages
138-138
ISSN
  • 0948-5023 (ISSN-L)
  • 1610-2940
OpenAlex
W2111431601
Cited by
23
References
99
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 1
FWCI
3.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Molecular Modeling (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Physical and Theoretical Chemistry › Crystallography and molecular interactions
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Advanced Chemical Physics Studies
Keywords
halogen bonding, protein-ligand interactions, scoring functions, quantum chemical calculations, M06-2X, virtual screening, docking, binding affinity prediction, halogenated ligands
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Halogens, Ligands, Protein Binding, Proteins, Quantum Theory, Molecular Structure

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