Cited by 9Computational Drug Discovery MethodsProtein Structure and DynamicsAdvanced Chemical Physics Studies

Workflows and performances in the ranking prediction of 2016 D3R Grand Challenge 2: lessons learned from a collaborative effort.

Gao, Ying-Duo, Hu, Yuan, Crespo, Alejandro, Wang, Deping, Armacost, Kira A., Fells, James I., Fradera, Xavier, Wang, Hongwu +4 more·2018·Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design

Abstract

The 2016 D3R Grand Challenge 2 includes both pose and affinity or ranking predictions. This article is focused exclusively on affinity predictions submitted to the D3R challenge from a collaborative effort of the modeling and informatics group. Our submissions include ranking of 102 ligands covering 4 different chemotypes against the FXR ligand binding domain structure, and the relative binding affinity predictions of the two designated free energy subsets of 15 and 18 compounds. Using all the complex structures prepared in the same way allowed us to cover many types of workflows and compare their performances effectively. We evaluated typical workflows used in our daily structure-based design modeling support, which include docking scores, force field-based scores, QM/MM, MMGBSA, MD-MMGBSA, and MacroModel interaction energy estimations. The best performing methods for the two free energy subsets are discussed. Our results suggest that affinity ranking still remains very challenging; that the knowledge of more structural information does not necessarily yield more accurate predictions; and that visual inspection and human intervention are considerably important for ranking. Knowledge of the mode of action and protein flexibility along with visualization tools that depict polar and hydrophobic maps are very useful for visual inspection. QM/MM-based workflows were found to be powerful in affinity ranking and are encouraged to be applied more often. The standardized input and output enable systematic analysis and support methodology development and improvement for high level blinded predictions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10822-017-0072-z

Cites

55 of 55 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gao, Y.-D., Hu, Y., Crespo, A., Wang, D., Armacost, K. A., Fells, J. I., Fradera, X., Wang, H., Wang, H., Sherborne, B., Verras, A., & Peng, Z.
Affiliations
Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
  • Gao, Ying-Duo
  • Hu, Yuan
  • Crespo, Alejandro
Venue
Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design
Published
2017-10-06
Volume
32
Issue
1
Pages
129-142
ISSN
  • 0920-654X (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-4951
OpenAlex
W2760826988
Cited by
9
References
55
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1
FWCI
0.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Ministry of Earth Sciences
  • Ministry of Education, India
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
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Advanced Chemical Physics Studies
Keywords
ligand ranking, structure-based drug design, QM/MM, MM-GBSA, docking scores, free energy calculation, protein flexibility
MeSH terms
Receptor, Farnesoid X-Activated, Binding Sites, Humans, Ligands, Protein Binding, Protein Conformation, Spiro Compounds, Sulfonamides, Thermodynamics, Drug Design, Computer-Aided Design, Receptors, Cytoplasmic and Nuclear, Databases, Protein, Drug Discovery, Workflow, Molecular Docking Simulation

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