The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Drug-like Bioactive Structures and Conformational Coverage with the LigPrep/ConfGen Suite: Comparison to Programs MOE and Catalyst
Abstract
Computational conformational sampling underpins many aspects of small molecule modeling and design in pharmaceutical work. This work examined in detail the widely distributed LigPrep/ConfGen software suite and the conformational models it produces for drug-like compounds. We also compare LigPrep/ConfGen to MOE and Catalyst. Tests of the conformational sampling protocols included the reproduction of known bioactive structures of ligands, characterization of the size, coverage and diversity of the output conformational models, and relative computation times. The present tests will help the user to make informed choices among the predefined ConfGen protocols (Very fast, Fast, Intermediate, and Comprehensive), and the adjustable input parameters. The parameters governing the initial compound preparation (LigPrep) and the subsequent conformational sampling were explored. This analysis has led to a new protocol called "ConfGen Optimized", which improves upon the predefined protocols. ConfGen Optimized is computationally tractable and reproduced 80% of the bioactive structures within 1 A, versus 66% for the default ConfGen Fast protocol. We also addressed the issue of the reproduction of compact/folded bioactive structures by ConfGen. It involved the compilation of a new set of 50 folded diverse drug-like bioactive structures. This indicates that heuristics penalizing folded conformers hinder reproduction of some binding modes. Overall, ConfGen offers great flexibility of use and provides a valuable addition to the molecular modeling toolbox.
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
Friesner, R. A., Banks, J. L., Murphy, R. B., Halgren, T. A., Klicic, J. J., Mainz, D. T., Repasky, M. P., Knoll, E. H., Shelley, M., Perry, J. K., et al. (2004) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm0306430 · Cited by 10,057
Cramer, R. D., Patterson, D. E., & Bunce, J. D. (1988) · Journal of the American Chemical Society · doi:10.1021/ja00226a005 · Cited by 3,931
Cited by
Improved Docking of Polypeptides with Glide
Tubert-Brohman, I., Sherman, W., Repasky, M., & Beuming, T. (2013) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/ci400128m · Cited by 1,308
Conformer Generation with OMEGA: Learning from the Data Set and the Analysis of Failures
Hawkins, P. C. D., & Nicholls, A. (2012) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/ci300314k · Cited by 403
Grover, A., Katiyar, S. P., Jeyakanthan, J., Dubey, V. K., & Sundar, D. (2012) · BMC Genomics · doi:10.1186/1471-2164-13-s7-s20 · Cited by 52
Metadata
- Authors
- Chen, I.-J., & Foloppe, N.
- Venue
- Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2010-04-27
- Volume
- 50
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 822-839
- ISSN
- 1549-9596 (ISSN-L)
- 1549-960X
- OpenAlex
- W2004343588
- Cited by
- 204
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 9.39
- 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
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.