The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evaluations of Molecular Docking Programs for Virtual Screening
Abstract
Structure-based virtual screening is carried out using molecular docking programs. A number of such docking programs are currently available, and the selection of docking program is difficult without knowing the characteristics or performance of each program. In this study, the screening performances of three molecular docking programs, DOCK, AutoDock, and GOLD, were evaluated with 116 target proteins. The screening performances were validated using two novel standards, along with a traditional enrichment rate measurement. For the evaluations, each docking run was repeated 1000 times with three initial conformations of a ligand. While each docking program has some merit over the other docking programs in some aspects, DOCK showed an unexpectedly better screening performance in the enrichment rates. Finally, we made several recommendations based on the evaluation results to enhance the screening performances of the docking programs.
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
Development and validation of a genetic algorithm for flexible docking 1 1Edited by F. E. Cohen
Jones, G., Willett, P., Glen, R. C., Leach, A. R., & Taylor, R. (1997) · Journal of Molecular Biology · doi:10.1006/jmbi.1996.0897 · Cited by 6,763
Comparative evaluation of eight docking tools for docking and virtual screening accuracy
Kellenberger, E., Rodrigo, J., Muller, P., & Rognan, D. (2004) · Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.20149 · Cited by 577
Cited by
Software for molecular docking: a review
Pagadala, N. S., Syed, K., & Tuszynski, J. (2017) · Biophysical Reviews · doi:10.1007/s12551-016-0247-1 · Cited by 1,522
Wang, Z., Sun, H., Yao, X., Li, D., Xu, L., Li, Y., Tian, S., & Hou, T. (2016) · Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics · doi:10.1039/c6cp01555g · Cited by 946
Validation of Molecular Docking Programs for Virtual Screening against Dihydropteroate Synthase
Hevener, K. E., Zhao, W., Ball, D. M., Babaoglu, K., Qi, J., White, S. W., & Lee, R. E. (2009) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/ci800293n · Cited by 668
Moitessier, N., Englebienne, P., Lee, D., Lawandi, J., & Corbeil, C. R. (2008) · British Journal of Pharmacology · doi:10.1038/sj.bjp.0707515 · Cited by 514
Docking Challenge: Protein Sampling and Molecular Docking Performance
Elokely, K. M., & Doerksen, R. J. (2013) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/ci400040d · Cited by 287
Metadata
- Authors
- Onodera, K., Satou, K., & Hirota, H.
- Venue
- Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2007-06-28
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1609-1618
- ISSN
- 1549-9596 (ISSN-L)
- 1549-960X
- OpenAlex
- W2050992060
- Cited by
- 197
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 11.04
- 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.
