The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
An Alternative Method for the Evaluation of Docking Performance: RSR vs RMSD
Abstract
A new assessment criterion for docking poses is proposed in which experimental electron density is taken into account when evaluating the ability of docking programs to reproduce experimentally observed binding modes. Three docking programs (Gold, Glide, and Fred) were used to generate poses for a set of 88 protein-ligand complexes for which the crystal structure is known. The new criterion is based on the real space R-factor (RSR), which measures how well a group of atoms-in our case the ligand-fits the experimental electron density by comparing that density to the expected density, calculated from the model (i.e., the predicted ligand pose). The RSR-based measure is compared to the traditional criterion, the root-mean-square distance (RMSD) between the docking pose and the binding configuration in the crystallographic model. The results highlight several shortcomings of the RMSD criterion that do not affect the RSR-based measure. Examples illustrate that the RSR-derived approach allows a more meaningful a posteriori assessment of docking methods and results. Practical implications for docking evaluations and for methodological development work in this field are discussed.
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
Principles of docking: An overview of search algorithms and a guide to scoring functions
Halperin, I., Ma, B., Wolfson, H., & Nussinov, R. (2002) · Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.10115 · Cited by 1,294
Comparative evaluation of 11 scoring functions for molecular docking.
Wang, R., Lu, Y., & Wang, S. (2003) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm0203783 · Cited by 849
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
Huang, S.-Y., Grinter, S. Z., & Zou, X. (2010) · Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics · doi:10.1039/c0cp00151a · Cited by 508
Damm-Ganamet, K. L., Smith, R. D., Dunbar, J. B., Stuckey, J. A., & Carlson, H. A. (2013) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/ci400025f · Cited by 133
Metadata
- Authors
- Yusuf, D., Davis, A. M., Kleywegt, G. J., & Schmitt, S.
- Venue
- Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2008-07-01
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1411-1422
- ISSN
- 1549-9596 (ISSN-L)
- 1549-960X
- OpenAlex
- W1995952752
- Cited by
- 331
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 6.97
- 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.