Cited by 60Computational Drug Discovery MethodsProtein Structure and DynamicsAdvanced Chemical Physics Studies

Lennard-Jones Potential and Dummy Atom Settings to Overcome the AUTODOCK Limitation in Treating Flexible Ring Systems

Forli, Stefano, Botta, Maurizio·2007·Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling

Abstract

Here, we present a setting-up procedure of AutoDock parameters that allows the management of cycle and macrocycle flexibility during the docking process. In particular, the glue dummy atom type is introduced into calculations, and a novel empirical pseudo-Lennard-Jones potential function is applied to describe the intramolecular interactions occurring between two glue dummy atoms. The reliability of such an original protocol is tested by evaluation of 21 cyclic ligands in the corresponding binding site. As a result, the binding mode of 17 ligands is well-reproduced with respect to the X-ray crystallographic structure, with an root-mean-square deviation lower than 2 Angstrom for 15 of them.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/ci700036j

Cites

12 of 12 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 specification and architecture of AutoDock was designed to allow user modification for specialized systems, and has been used previously to model protein flexibility, flexible rings in ligands, zinc interaction, and selective hydration.

    “The specification and architecture of AutoDock was designed to allow this type of user modification for specialized systems, and has been used previously to model protein flexibility, 12 flexible rings in ligands, 13 zinc interaction, 14 and selective hydration.15”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Forli, S., & Botta, M.
Affiliations
University of Siena (IT)
Corresponding author
Forli, Stefano
Venue
Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling
Published
2007-06-22
Volume
47
Issue
4
Pages
1481-1492
ISSN
  • 1549-9596 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-960X
OpenAlex
W2220752566
Cited by
58
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 4
FWCI
1.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Use Siena air (University of Siena) (submittedVersion)
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
Lennard-Jones potential, AutoDock, macrocycle flexibility, cyclic ligands, molecular docking, intramolecular interactions, binding mode prediction
MeSH terms
Cyclization, Models, Molecular, Molecular Conformation, Crystallography, X-Ray

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