Cited by 23Computational Drug Discovery MethodsSynthesis and Characterization of Heterocyclic CompoundsCholinesterase and Neurodegenerative Diseases

Prospective performance evaluation of selected common virtual screening tools, case study: cyclooxygenase (COX) 1 and 2.

Open access
Kaserer, Teresa, Temml, Veronika, Kutil, Zsofia, Vanek, Tomas, Landa, Premysl, Schuster, Daniela·2015·European Journal of Medicinal Chemistry

Abstract

Computational methods can be applied in drug development for the identification of novel lead candidates, but also for the prediction of pharmacokinetic properties and potential adverse effects, thereby aiding to prioritize and identify the most promising compounds. In principle, several techniques are available for this purpose, however, which one is the most suitable for a specific research objective still requires further investigation. Within this study, the performance of several programs, representing common virtual screening methods, was compared in a prospective manner. First, we selected top-ranked virtual screening hits from the three methods pharmacophore modeling, shape-based modeling, and docking. For comparison, these hits were then additionally predicted by external pharmacophore- and 2D similarity-based bioactivity profiling tools. Subsequently, the biological activities of the selected hits were assessed in vitro, which allowed for evaluating and comparing the prospective performance of the applied tools. Although all methods performed well, considerable differences were observed concerning hit rates, true positive and true negative hits, and hitlist composition. Our results suggest that a rational selection of the applied method represents a powerful strategy to maximize the success of a research project, tightly linked to its aims. We employed cyclooxygenase as application example, however, the focus of this study lied on highlighting the differences in the virtual screening tool performances and not in the identification of novel COX-inhibitors.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ejmech.2015.04.017

Cites

73 of 73 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kaserer, T., Temml, V., Kutil, Z., Vanek, T., Landa, P., & Schuster, D.
Affiliations
Universität Innsbruck (AT)
Corresponding author
Schuster, Daniela
Venue
European Journal of Medicinal Chemistry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-05
Volume
96
Pages
445-457
ISSN
0223-5234 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2077527914
Cited by
23
References
73
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1
FWCI
5.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • European Journal of Medicinal Chemistry (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ASEP (submittedVersion, public-domain)
Funders
  • University of Innsbruck
  • OeAD WTZ (CZ11/2011, CZ14/2013)
  • Austrian Science Fund (P26782)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Organic Chemistry › Synthesis and Characterization of Heterocyclic Compounds
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Cholinesterase and Neurodegenerative Diseases
Keywords
virtual screening, cyclooxygenase, cyclooxygenase-1, cyclooxygenase-2, pharmacophore modeling, molecular docking, hit prediction, hit rate, cyclooxygenase inhibitors, lead candidate identification
MeSH terms
Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Drug Evaluation, Preclinical, Humans, Models, Molecular, Structure-Activity Relationship, Molecular Structure, Cyclooxygenase Inhibitors, Cyclooxygenase 1, Cyclooxygenase 2

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