The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Potential and Limitations of Ensemble Docking
Abstract
A major problem in structure-based virtual screening applications is the appropriate selection of a single or even multiple protein structures to be used in the virtual screening process. A priori it is unknown which protein structure(s) will perform best in a virtual screening experiment. We investigated the performance of ensemble docking, as a function of ensemble size, for eight targets of pharmaceutical interest. Starting from single protein structure docking results, for each ensemble size up to 500,000 combinations of protein structures were generated, and, for each ensemble, pose prediction and virtual screening results were derived. Comparison of single to multiple protein structure results suggests improvements when looking at the performance of the worst and the average over all single protein structures to the performance of the worst and average over all protein ensembles of size two or greater, respectively. We identified several key factors affecting ensemble docking performance, including the sampling accuracy of the docking algorithm, the choice of the scoring function, and the similarity of database ligands to the cocrystallized ligands of ligand-bound protein structures in an ensemble. Due to these factors, the prospective selection of optimum ensembles is a challenging task, shown by a reassessment of published ensemble selection protocols.
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
Benchmarking sets for molecular docking.
Huang, N., Shoichet, B. K., & Irwin, J. J. (2006) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm0608356 · Cited by 1,318
Implications of protein flexibility for drug discovery
Teague, S. J. (2003) · Nature Reviews Drug Discovery · doi:10.1038/nrd1129 · Cited by 755
McGovern, S. L., & Shoichet, B. K. (2003) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm0300330 · Cited by 276
Cited by
Role of computer-aided drug design in modern drug discovery
Macalino, S. J. Y., Gosu, V., Hong, S., & Choi, S. (2015) · Archives of Pharmacal Research · doi:10.1007/s12272-015-0640-5 · Cited by 762
Key Topics in Molecular Docking for Drug Design
Torres, P. H. M., Sodero, A. C. R., Jofily, P., & Silva-Jr, F. P. (2019) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms20184574 · Cited by 641
Wei, G., Xi, W., Nussinov, R., & Ma, B. (2016) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.5b00562 · Cited by 436
Guedes, I. A., Pereira, F. S. S., & Dardenne, L. E. (2018) · Frontiers in Pharmacology · doi:10.3389/fphar.2018.01089 · Cited by 331
Next generation 3D pharmacophore modeling
Schaller, D., Šribar, D., Noonan, T., Deng, L., Nguyen, T. N., Pach, S., Machalz, D., Bermudez, M., & Wolber, G. (2020) · WIREs Computational Molecular Science · doi:10.1002/wcms.1468 · Cited by 269
Understanding the challenges of protein flexibility in drug design.
Antunes, D. A., Devaurs, D., & Kavraki, L. E. (2015) · Expert Opinion on Drug Discovery · doi:10.1517/17460441.2015.1094458 · Cited by 131
Metadata
- Authors
- Korb, O., Olsson, T. S. G., Bowden, S. J., Hall, R. J., Verdonk, M. L., Liebeschuetz, J. W., & Cole, J. C.
- Venue
- Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2012-04-17
- Volume
- 52
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1262-1274
- ISSN
- 1549-9596 (ISSN-L)
- 1549-960X
- OpenAlex
- W2061799302
- Cited by
- 169
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 15.95
- 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.