The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
MM-GB/SA Rescoring of Docking Poses in Structure-Based Lead Optimization
Abstract
The critical issues in docking include the prediction of the correct binding pose and the accurate estimation of the corresponding binding affinity. Different docking methodologies have all been successful in reproducing the crystallographic binding modes but struggle when predicting the corresponding binding affinities. The aim of this work is to evaluate the performance of the MM-GB/SA rescoring of docking poses in structure-based lead optimization. To accomplish that, a diverse set of pharmaceutically relevant targets, including CDK2, FactorXa, Thrombin, and HIV-RT were selected. The correlation between the MM-GB/SA results and experimental data in all cases is remarkable. It even qualifies this approach as a more attractive alternative for rank-ordering than the Free Energy Perturbation and Thermodynamic Integration methodologies because, while as accurate, it can handle more structurally dissimilar ligands and provides results at a fraction of the computational cost. On the technical side, the benefit of performing a conformational analysis and having an ensemble of conformers to represent each ligand in the unbound state during the MM-GB/SA rescoring procedure was investigated. In addition, the estimation of conformational entropy penalties for the ligands upon binding, computed from the Boltzmann distribution in water, was evaluated and compared to a commonly used approach employed by many docking scoring functions.
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
Charifson, P. S., Corkery, J. J., Murcko, M. A., & Walters, W. P. (1999) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm990352k · Cited by 698
Cited by
Class I histone deacetylases (HDAC1–3) are histone lysine delactylases
Moreno-Yruela, C., Zhang, D., Wei, W., Bæk, M., Liu, W., Gao, J., Danková, D., Nielsen, A. L., Bolding, J. E., Yang, L., et al. (2022) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.abi6696 · Cited by 841
Huang, S.-Y., Grinter, S. Z., & Zou, X. (2010) · Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics · doi:10.1039/c0cp00151a · Cited by 508
Rapid Context-Dependent Ligand Desolvation in Molecular Docking
Mysinger, M. M., & Shoichet, B. K. (2010) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/ci100214a · Cited by 317
New Aryl Hydrocarbon Receptor Homology Model Targeted To Improve Docking Reliability
Motto, I., Bordogna, A., Soshilov, A. A., Denison, M. S., & Bonati, L. (2011) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/ci2001617 · Cited by 80
Yang, Y., Lightstone, F. C., & Wong, S. E. (2013) · Expert Opinion on Drug Discovery · doi:10.1517/17460441.2013.749853 · Cited by 65
Metadata
- Authors
- Guimarães, C. R. W., & Cardozo, M.
- Venue
- Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2008-04-19
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 958-970
- ISSN
- 1549-9596 (ISSN-L)
- 1549-960X
- OpenAlex
- W2009529127
- Cited by
- 219
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 27.43
- 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.